Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HERITAGE

Volunteering

Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she last met representatives of the voluntary sector to discuss volunteering [33658]

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Since taking over responsibility for volunteering, I have been meeting a range of people to discuss volunteering, both in the key national voluntary organisations and in local volunteer bureaux. We have a strong tradition of volunteering in the United Kingdom. It is an enormously worthwhile activity, enabling individuals of all ages to contribute positively to the communities in which they live. I am looking forward to building on that important tradition to encourage more varied and challenging opportunities for volunteering, especially among the young.

Mr. Brazier: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. Will she join me in supporting the splendid work of the cadet movement, which brings discipline, commitment and leadership to many young people throughout the country? I welcome the fact that the national lottery has dispensed grants to 14 cadet units to enable them to improve their training centres. Does my right hon. Friend have any advice to offer other cadet units that are seeking funding in that way?

Mrs. Bottomley: I share my hon. Friend's endorsement of the cadet movement and of the volunteers who devote so much time to bringing up the next generation and encouraging young people to take a responsible role in society. Involvement in worthwhile activities is one of the best ways of building the citizens of the next century and there is no doubt that the national lottery is making many more opportunities available.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does the Secretary of State agree that a great deal more drive and coherence is needed in the promotion of volunteering? Will she issue guidance to local authorities to encourage them to think strategically about the involvement of volunteers across the range of their responsibilities? Will she also do all that she can to ensure that local authorities have the resources available to them to support volunteers and to promote good practice?

Mrs. Bottomley: Something like 23 million people—or one in two adults—are involved in volunteering each year. I believe that there is great untapped potential and I shall certainly take up the hon. Gentleman's ideas in carrying forward my new responsibilities. I intend to chair the interministerial group on volunteering and part of its work will be to ensure that local authorities are fully committed to the use of a maximum number of volunteers where appropriate.

Mr. Rowe: Has my right hon. Friend inherited the commitment made by the Home Secretary that every young person who wishes it shall have an opportunity to volunteer? If she has, will she assure us that she is going flat out to make that possible? Will she also tell the House whether she is making progress in negotiations about benefit entitlements to young people which often make it difficult for them to become involved in volunteering?

Mrs. Bottomley: There are a great number of factors involved in promoting volunteering, particularly among the young. Discussions about benefit matters and with schools must be part of that work. I was enormously impressed by Volunteers Week this year. I was delighted that 108 Members of Parliament accepted the Women's Royal Voluntary Service challenge to learn more about its work. I believe that there is further potential and we must make good the commitment to encourage young people to become involved in volunteering and to make it a habit for life.

National Lottery

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent discussions she has had with the bodies dispensing national lottery moneys. [33659]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I have regular meetings with the chairmen of the English and United Kingdom distributing bodies.

Mrs. Prentice: Is the Secretary of State aware that she has been extremely reticent in coming to the House to explain how much money the Millennium Commission will spend in Greenwich? Will she now tell the House and the people of Greenwich and of London as a whole how much money will be spent, in what way and who will be involved in making the decisions?

Mrs. Bottomley: I look forward to being able to come to the House to make a further statement to inform colleagues of the details of the Millennium Commission's progress. The funding packages are highly complex and I much appreciate the co-operation of the Labour party and of Greenwich borough council in ensuring that we make progress swiftly and effectively by sorting out the details. I can tell the House how much money has been spent by the national lottery in the hon. Lady's constituency: in Lewisham, 29 awards have been made, amounting to more than £3 million. The lottery is a phenomenal success.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the foremost arts festival in England, the Lichfield festival., begins at the end of this week and will last for 10 days?


Is she further aware of how grateful the festival is for the recent award of more than £68,000 for stage and display equipment?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am delighted to share my hon. Friend's endorsement the Lichfield festival and I especially commend the artistic director, Paul Spicer and the dean and chapter of Lichfield cathedral. The festival brings more people into contact with the Church and brings people together by providing an outlet for creative activities. That £68,000 is only one of 1,245 arts awards, which amount to £483 million since the start of the national lottery.

Dr. John Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, although we support the proposed exhibition at Greenwich and we want it to succeed, we feel uncomfortable when we read regular briefings from Sir Peter Levene about the Millennium Commission' activities, but we cannot have full statements in the House? Can the Secretary of State explain why Greenwich borough council is still being excluded from the deliberations when it wants the event to be a success and to make a positive contribution to the raising of private sector funding? Is it the case, as has been suggested in the newspapers, that the life of the Millennium Commission will be extended by one year to give it an extra £250 million to cover the eventual costs of the exhibition? Finally—[Interruption.] I make no apology for asking a further question because this is the first opportunity that we have had to ask these important questions and the House is entitled to know. Is it true that funding for regional exhibitions is being reduced to vire resources to the national exhibition at Greenwich?

Mrs. Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman, like other hon. Members, wants more information about the festival at Greenwich and I hope that I shall be able to write to hon. Members in my role as chairman of the Millennium Commission before the recess. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, a Labour party nominee, Michael Montague, sits on the Millennium Commission and, on all occasions, we have sought to avoid any party political issues. I recognise and accept the collaboration of the Opposition. We are seeking to stage the largest event of its sort anywhere in the world and, inevitably, the financial negotiations are highly complex. The commission took the view that £200 million was an appropriate amount for it to put into the festival. When it became clear that the business case required more funding, we sought the co-operation of the private sector.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Sir Peter Levene have had some extremely encouraging meetings, as I have myself. Once the plans are finalised, we will be able to make firm statements. When hon. Members see the full details of the Imagination proposals—I share their impatience—they will share the sense of excitement and exhilaration that members of the commission have felt. The regional festivals are part of the proposals and the majority of flagship projects funded so far by the Millennium Commission are outside London. It is important that all parties of the country share in the millennium.

Mrs. Lait: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that she has no intention of extending lottery funding to replace the Government's funding of education and health, which is in contrast with the report in June's edition of "Lottery Monitor" which says that the Labour party is considering doing so?

Mrs. Bottomley: I can, indeed, reassure my hon. Friend on that point. It is well understood that the Opposition's proposals would betray the principles of additionality. They would betray those who benefit from the lottery as they would increase the operating costs, and they would betray the 30,000 or so retailers who earn about £8,000 a year from their lottery outlet.

Choirs

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what support is available for choirs from (a) her Department and (b) the national lottery. [33660]

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. kin Sproat): My Department's funding for the arts in England—including choir—is channelled through the Arts Council of England and the regional arts boards. Choirs are eligible to apply for lottery funding. So far, 13 awards totalling £373,000 have been made by the Arts Councils of England and Wales.

Mr. Hain: My colleagues are inciting me to sing this question, but I shall resist the temptation. Is the Minister aware that Welsh choirs play an important role in their local communities and do a great deal of important charitable work? Neath is a centre of excellence for male-voice choirs and the Minister would be welcome to attend any of their performances and would be given a warm Welsh welcome. May I invite him to Cor Cochion Caerdydd's performance next Wednesday in the Jubilee Room? The fact that it is translated as the Welsh "Reds Choir" may mean that he will find himself otherwise engaged.

Mr. Sproat: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind invitation. I know from our previous discussion of the close interest that he takes in the half a dozen choirs in the Neath area. The fact that the Arts Council of Wales has made some eight lottery awards to choirs shows how much it values them. Indeed, the whole country does. There are now some 100 male-voice choirs in Wales, of which it is encouraging to know that some two thirds have been started in the past 40 years.

Sir Roger Sims: I suspect, Madam Speaker, that you would rule me out of order if I were to burst into song. Does my hon. Friend accept that thousands of people throughout the country in all walks of life derive great pleasure from singing with choral societies, as I do with the Royal Choral Society? Does he recognise that, although choirs can attract audiences sufficient to meet their costs for carol concerts and performances such as the Messiah, it is much more difficult for them to put on many other wonderful choral works unless they have financial assistance from the sources that he mentioned?

Mr. Sproat: Yes. My hon. Friend is right about the great popularity of choirs. Some 250,000 people regularly sing in choirs. On my hon. Friend's wish to give choirs more money, there are the lottery boards that I have already mentioned—five in England and eight in Wales—and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly publish a document on the arts, which will make funds to amateur organisations that we wish to support even more easily come by.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Minister know that St. John's methodist chapel, Connah's Quay, has a very good choir, and that it is mixed to boot? Does he know how I might obtain £100,000 for the chapel, which needs to be modernised and refurbished? Will he receive a deputation, or advise how that amount of money can be obtained from the lottery?

Mr. Sproat: Yes. I remember the wonderful introduction that the hon. Gentleman gave me to the Liverpool Philharmonic a couple of years ago. If he can do as well with that chapel, I should be glad to meet any deputation that he cares to bring to me.

Tourism

Mr. Gale: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps her Department is taking to promote tourism in the Isle of Thanet. [33661]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I welcomed the opportunity to visit the Isle of Thanet to reopen the Dreamland amusement park at Margate. This development is an excellent example of public and private sector partnership working to revitalise seaside resorts.

Mr. Gale: The people of Margate were extremely grateful that my right hon. Friend found time to give up a Sunday to open the new Dreamland complex. As she is aware, new Dreamland—unlike new Labour—is a stunning reality. She has also seen the need for more investment in Margate seafront to reinstate Margate as one of the country's premier family seaside resorts. Today a submission has been made for the regeneration of Margate sea front, both to my right hon. Friend and the national heritage memorial fund. I appreciate that she cannot write a cheque this afternoon, but will she ensure that the submission gets sympathetic consideration?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend knows full well that I am a great believer in the British seaside holiday—[Interruption.] It is vital to the tourism industry which is, of course, denigrated by Labour Members, who are reckless in their attitude to the employment implications of the tourism industry. About 50 per cent. of the tourism spend in the domestic market is on seaside holidays, so the jeers and denigration of the Labour party bode ill for people in the seaside holiday industry. I will certainly give encouragement and cheers to my hon. Friend's approach of seeking further investment in a wonderful seaside town, which he represents so admirably.

Mr. Tony Banks: I hope that the Secretary of State will do all that she can to encourage tourism in Thanet and I hope that the English tourist board will do the same because it is important. How is it, then, that Mr. David

Quarmby, whom the right hon. Lady has just appointed as chairman of the English tourist board and the British Tourist Authority, will work only three days a week—one and a half days on each board—for which he will get £54,000 a year? Could this be the same Mr. David Quarmby who got £900,000 from Sainsbury following the management reshuffle when he quit? I do not know what he will be able to do for tourism; no doubt he could take us on a guided tour around some interesting bank accounts.

Mrs. Bottomley: New Labour never ceases to carp about the Government. New Labour so hates success and so hates profit that it would turn over the national lottery because it so despises the phenomenal success of Camelot. New Labour resents the fact that we have a chairman of the British Tourist Authority and of the English tourist board who is a person of authority and distinction, and who will lead the industry, which is likely to be responsible for 40 per cent. of new jobs, amounting to 1 million, in the next 10 years. Labour is interested only in the politics of envy, of misery and of denigration. Once again, that bodes ill for the tourism industry, but the industry knows that it is safe with this Government.

Tourism

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has to encourage tourism in London. [33662]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I want to improve the promotion overseas of London as a world city and as the gateway to Britain. This year, we have provided an additional £1.5 million for the "Focus London" campaign.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way in which London helped to host Euro 96 demonstrates that it is a first-class tourist city and underlines the strength of Britain's case for hosting the world cup in 2006? Does she also agree that the case for London has been weakened by the irresponsible action of unions on London underground who seem oblivious to the hardship they cause and the jobs that they put at risk?

Mrs. Bottomley: I welcome the opportunity warmly to commend all those involved in Euro 96. It has been a phenomenal success and Britain has regained its reputation for being able to host world sporting events. I most certainly hope that that may lead to the World cup and many other international events coming here. I commend all those who participated, the arts events, the tourism industry and the security arrangements. Euro 96 has been a great source of joy and pleasure to many, and especially to all those who support football.
How right my hon. Friend is to condemn the dispute on the London underground. How typical it is that the Labour party cannot bring itself to condemn that action Some 250,000 people come to Britain to have the opportunity to see Britain being prosperous and successful. For that experience to be marred by industrial disputes, as we had in the old days when the Labour party was in control, is shameful.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that we agree with what she said about Euro 96? It was a great success. However, is she aware that in the other 50 weeks of the year, what puts people off London is the flea-bitten, rat-trap hotels around King's Cross, Victoria, Paddington and other places? One of the problems is that the country has no statutory grading of small hotels or minimum standards such as many other countries have. As long as the right hon. Lady leaves the matter to the free-market economy—most of the cheaper hotels have gone over to providing accommodation for the homeless—she will display massive neglect in terms of doing something about health and hygiene standards, and prices, at small hotels in London.

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the importance of value for money and good standards in hotels in London in particular, and across the country. That is why so much work has gone into the preparation of the crown scheme in collaboration with the motoring industry's validation system. Work is also under way to encourage planning permission for hotels, particularly in London, and it is important that local authorities grant those permissions. A welcome number of new hotels have started in London and there has been a great deal more investment, but I am pleased to have Labour's support in driving up standards in the hotel sector. The excellent Mr. David Quarmby is certainly making that a priority as he takes on his new responsibilities.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Would not tourism in London be encouraged if far greater use were made of the River Thames, not only by tourists visiting London, but in future, by tourists visiting the millennium site in Greenwich and, above all, the historic town of Gravesend?

Mrs. Bottomley: The opportunity for tourists to visit not only the centre of London, which is the gateway to Britain, but other parts of the country, including Gravesend, will undoubtedly be most welcome. However, I must take the opportunity to focus our minds on the phenomenal investment on the banks of Thames as a result of the national lottery. They include the developments at Bankside, the £50 million new Tate gallery, the Globe theatre, the Maritime hall at the Maritime museum and many other projects. There is now an unprecedented level of investment in London's cultural infrastructure.

Dr. John Cunningham: For the record, let me remind the Secretary of State that we welcome the appointment of Mr. David Quarmby to the British Tourist Authority and English tourist board. She was quite wrong to suggest otherwise. Is she aware that, far from feeling safe in the Government's hands, the tourism industry feels ignored and neglected by her Department? As she has complimented the Football Association on the success of Euro 96, may I join her in extending those compliments and plaudits on behalf of the Opposition? Can we take it that the Government will support the FA's intention to bid for the world cup soccer championships to be held in London? Will the Government support that bid?

Mrs. Bottomley: Undoubtedly, the Government will support that in every possible way. There have been most constructive and productive relationships in respect of

Euro 96. The different agencies, local authorities, the Football Association, the security services, the arts organisations and the tourism industry worked together with a great deal of planning and wonderful results, and it would be a great triumph and a great day for Britain if we were to host the world cup.
I am delighted to hear that new Labour supports Mr. David Quarmby. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is rather difficult for Conservative Members to know which Labour spokesman to take seriously. When old Labour, new Labour, and middling Labour can synchronise their voices, we shall be able to follow the script more carefully.

National Lottery

Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many good causes have been awarded funds from the national lottery in (a) Milton Keynes and (b) Buckinghamshire. [33663]

Mr. Sproat: Nineteen national lottery awards, totalling more than £20.6 million, have been awarded to projects in Milton Keynes. Forty-nine projects in Buckinghamshire have received lottery funds totalling more than £23.3 million.

Mr. Butler: That shows a proper sense of priority between Milton Keynes and the rest of Buckinghamshire. May I particularly welcome the grant of something over £19 million in capital grant to build the new theatre in Milton Keynes, which has been planned for many years and for which there is a great demand? It represents a clear answer to those who say that all the money goes to London. Most of us live outside London and enjoy facilities outside London. The sums available are a testament to the work of Camelot, which I congratulate on behalf of the citizens of Milton Keynes on running the lottery to such good effect.

Mr. Sproat: I entirely share my hon. Friend's pleasure at the leisure centre going to Milton Keynes, and I shall ensure that his comments about Camelot are passed on to it.

Popular Music

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the role of her Department in the promotion of the British popular music industry. [33664]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The British music industry is enormously successful, nationally and world wide, adding to the enjoyment of music of all types. I meet representatives of the industry regularly.

Mr. Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain leads the world in the pop music industry, which generates more than £1 billion of export earnings every year without a penny of Government subsidy? Does she agree that, although it is too often dismissed by music snobs, it is a great British success story?

Mrs. Bottomley: I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. The industry is extremely successful. It employs about 50,000 people and, as he says, is a major export earner. The net surplus on overseas trade in 1993 was £571 million—similar to the net overseas earnings of the steel industry. Its success is widely recognised. How pleased we all were that George Martin received a knighthood in the recent honours list.

Mr. Maxton: Does the right hon. Lady agree that one of the best ways to encourage popular music is to ensure the continuation of the BBC's Radio 1, which encourages new talent and plays live popular music unlike any other radio station in the country? Will she therefore make it absolutely clear that she will always refuse any attempt to privatise Radio 1?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman's question because, of course, since the Conservative party has been in power, Radio 5 has been launched to join Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 3 and Radio 4. I am a little taken aback by his comments but delighted to endorse Radio 1's role, which, as he rightly said, is significant in promoting the pop industry, especially by offering opportunities to new performers.

Sport Academy

Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has for an academy of sport. [33665]

Mr. Sproat: We announced our intention to establish a British academy of sport in the sports policy statement, "Sport: Raising the Game" in July 1995. Following the Sports Council's recent consultation exercise, the council will shortly be issuing the prospectus for bids to establish the academy.

Mr. Amess: In the light of the great success in every respect of Euro 96, does my hon. Friend believe that an academy of sport will ensure future sporting triumphs? What sporting events are likely to be covered by it? Will he consider very carefully Basildon, Southend and Redbridge as sites for future sporting academies?

Mr. Sproat: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those who were responsible for Euro 96. I was particularly pleased that Mr. Terry Venables and the English team received the award for fair play last night. The British academy will be more concerned with the athletes who go there, hut, of course, all sports will be able to apply to attend and I imagine that pretty well every sport will do so. I saw that Basildon and Redbridge had put forward bids and I wish them all the luck that they need in being successful.

Mr. Grocott: Although I agree with the Minister about the success of Euro 96, is not the best possible recruitment ground for future sporting talent enabling as many young people as possible to see sport at its best, which probably means seeing it on the major television channels? Given that the key reason why Euro 96 was such a national success was the fact that 27 million people saw the semi-final on terrestrial channels, how do the Government propose to change policy so that the pattern of recent

years, in which, recurrently, coverage of major events has been built up by terrestrial channels then sold to minority channels that few people can view, is substantially reversed?

Mr. Sproat: If the hon. Gentleman is present for the Report stage of the Broadcasting Bill, which starts in the House in about half an hour, and sticks it out until the end of the day, he will no doubt hear the Government's answer to that very important question.

Mr. John Carlisle: What progress has been made on creating an academy of cricket? Cricket, of course, is our prime summer sport, rather than what has been going on in the past few weeks. The MCC made progress under the chairmanship of Dennis Silk, but the idea was then dropped. What initiatives has my hon. Friend taken on this matter? Does he support the idea of an academy of cricket?

Mr. Sproat: We see a three-tier structure of the academies, with the British academy of sport at its peak, a number of regional institutes of sport, and academies of individual sports, of which the academy of cricket will be one. I have had various discussions with Dennis Silk and other members of the Test and County Cricket Board about an academy for cricket, but it must be a matter for the sport itself. If such an academy were to be set up, it would receive my enthusiastic support.

Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that there is great relief in the sporting world that the Sports Council's consultation on the academy of sport has come to an end? He will be aware that the consultation revealed overwhelming support for the Labour party's approach—for a headquarters site with an enhanced regional network, as he just said. It is pleasing to note that, in recent weeks, the Minister has moved away from his original support for a huge one-off green-field site, as outlined in his article in The Daily Telegraph on 5 December 1995, and has come around to the opinion that we outlined. Now that the consultation has been completed, will he proceed with all speed in concert with all interested sporting bodies to ensure that our talented sports people get the academy that they richly deserve?

Mr. Sproat: If the hon. Gentleman refreshes his memory by reading the document of 14 July 1995, he will see half a dozen mentions of regional institutes of sport linked to the British academy. That was always my intention, and it is exactly what will happen. On his second point, we will be issuing a prospectus in the next few weeks.

Tourism

Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to encourage tourism in the south-east of England. [33666]

Mr. Sproat: My Department's support for tourism is channelled through the statutory British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board. Through the ETB, support is made available to the 11 non-statutory regional tourist hoards, including the South-East England tourist board.

Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend will know that I represent part of the Medway towns, which are steeped in history and have many tourist attractions, from Rochester's Norman castle and cathedral to the Dickens festival which is held several times a year. In Gillingham and Chatham, we have the historic dockyard and the Royal Engineers museum. All these are looking to provide additional attractions, particularly the dockyard. When the national heritage memorial fund is looking at its application for lottery funding, will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that this particularly important group of ancient monuments needs more attractions to add to the already attractive prospects of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution museum, the ropery and others?

Mr. Sproat: Yes. Chatham probably has more historic buildings than any other town in Europe, and I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the appropriate distributor bodies for lottery funds so that they can consider whether to help.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Minister aware of the many reputable language schools that succeed in bringing hundreds of thousands of young tourists to the south-east every year? Is he also aware of their demands for regulation of the industry to prevent fly-by-night operations which often bring large and unsupervised groups of very young children into the city?

Mr. Sproat: I am aware of the two serious points raised by the hon. Lady, and I shall draw them to the attention of the English tourist board and the British Tourist Authority.

Dame Peggy Fenner: I was very pleased to hear my hon. Friend say that he is aware that Chatham dockyard probably has the largest number of historic buildings on one site in the south-east. Will he note that these buildings in the historic end of Chatham dockyard are all listed and that, consequently, we would not permit anybody to let them fall into disrepair? However, we shall need more money to help us to keep them up to date.

Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for saying that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited the sites to which he refers. I know that my right hon. Friend will be doing everything she properly can to ensure that the lottery distributor of funds and the tourist boards consider his plea.

Scratchcard Lottery

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the secretary of state for National Heritage when she last met the Director General of the National Lottery to discuss the work of the scratchcard lottery and if she will make a statement. [33667]

Mr. Sproat: My right hon Friend last met the Director General of the National Lottery Mr. Peter Davis, on 9 May to discuss a range of issues of issues relating to the national lottery.

Mr. O'Brien: During the discussions did the Secretary of state refer to the apparent anomalies associate with the sale of lottery tickets to under-age people? Does that apply to scratchcards? I have here a copy of national

lottery's code of conduct, which is vague about the sale of scratchcards. It is Camelot's responsibility to ensure that they are not sold to under-age children. Will the Minister impress on the Office of the National Lottery and the national lottery people that they must make it clearer how the code of conduct applies to scratchcards and that Camelot should be diligent in ensuring that scratchcards are not sold to under-age children?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point and I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of both the director general of Oflot and Camelot. Scratchcards should not be sold to under-age children and Camelot has closed down one retailer for doing so, but I will reinforce the hon. Gentleman's plea to the appropriate bodies.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on Oflot's tough action to avoid its scratchcards being sold to people who are under age. Is it not important to realise that scratchcards are not a monopoly business for the national lottery and Camelot? A large number of companies and organisations are in that business and it would be wrong to blame all the problems of scratchcards on one company.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is right. Sales of scratchcards have fallen from a peak of about 40 million just over a year ago to 17 million. Only about 14 per cent. of people who buy lottery tickets buy scratchcards as opposed to 60 per cent. who play the main game. My hon. Friend is right to say that the national lottery does not have a monopoly on scratchcards.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister accept that shooting an admiral to encourage the others is not sufficient protection for the young? When he next meets the director general, will he ask him for a systematic monitoring process that can be reported on?

Mr. Sproat: I take the matter extremely seriously, as I told the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). In the 10 months until April this year, Oflot undertook no fewer than seven inquiries into the running of scratchcards; those showed no reasons for deep concern. None the less, I agree that under-age children should not be served, and Oflot and Camelot should do everything they can to ensure that that rule is obeyed.

Tourism

Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent discussions she has had with the British Tourist Authority about promoting Britain as a holiday destination. [33669]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I met the new chairman of the BTA shortly after his appointment, along with staff of the BTA, and discussed the current plan for promoting Britain. We are giving high priority to developing the fast-growing markets of the far east.

Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these small, overcrowded islands with their unique concentration of culture and historical heritage will need to look not to numbers of visitors alone but to the


high-spending, more lucrative, long-haul market? What success are we having in attracting tourists from the far east and what plans are there to increase their number?

Mrs. Bottomley: I recognise the force of my hon. Friend's arguments. The recent visit that I led to Japan with 30 tourist organisations was extremely successful. In Japan, it is well understood that the amount raised from visitors to Britain is larger than that from any other sector—more than £550 million last year. Recognising the economic significance of the tourist industry is of great importance. I commended the close working of the British Council—there is enormous interest in British cultural activities overseas—with the BTA. When the three work together, there is huge potential for Britain, particularly in those markets where at present only a small fraction of the population have even a passport.

Mr. Pike: Does the Secretary of State recognise the importance of developing tourism in the regions—the north-west and Lancashire in particular? Will her Department continue to give the support that the Minister for Sport has given to regional airports such as Manchester airport, so that people can fly directly to those airports and need not go via London airport?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Some 50 per cent. of visitors do come to London first, but most—and a growing number—also want to spend time outside the capital. One of the successes of Euro 96 was the fact that many visitors were able to see the magnificent cities that we have all over the country. I shall certainly continue to press the case for more direct routes.
I should remind the hon. Gentleman, however, that the real threat to the tourist industry comes from the Labour party's proposals. Only today, the Employment Policy Institute told us again that the tourist and hospitality industry would be hardest hit by a minimum wage, and only last week a report from BDO Hospitality Consulting said the same—as have many others. It is time that Labour listened.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

Justices of the Peace

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason it is necessary to seek the voting intentions of justices of the peace, without anonymity, prior to the next general election; and if he will make a statement. [33687]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): All those who apply to be appointed justices of the peace are asked to indicate their political affiliation in order to ensure that benches are balanced in that respect. The information is confidential to advisory committees, clerks to justices and my Department. Local surveys of the political affiliation of existing justices are sometimes carried out to establish current political affiliations.

Mr. Mackinlay: I accept the need for a bench that reflects the social and political complexion of the country. After justices are appointed, however, surely it is inappropriate and intrusive, as well as dangerous from a judicial point of view, to inquire how they intend to vote at the next general election. Does the Minister agree that it is inappropriate for justices to make such declarations to clerks, and will he reconsider the practice in relation to existing justices?

Mr. Streeter: There is no intention of reviewing the practice, which has continued for generations under Lord Chancellors and Prime Ministers of different persuasions. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that, at the last count, 31 colleagues on his own bench supported the Conservative party and 36 did not. I cannot see what his beef is all about.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, if a JP reveals himself to be a member of the hang 'em, flog 'em and disembowel 'em school of politics, he should not be barred from serving as a JP?

Mr. Streeter: The most important thing is the quality of justice dispensed by local benches, and I think that most of us feel that the quality of justice in this country is extremely high. It should come as no surprise to any Member of Parliament if the majority of JPs are Conservative supporters: after all, we know that Conservatives are actively involved in voluntary organisations up and down the country because we care about our country and our local communities.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Can the Minister give us a lucid explanation of the correlation between voting intention and the capacity to return a fair verdict? Will similar inquiries be made about which football club magistrates support, or whether they are freemasons, Oddfellows or farmers? What other matters are now to be inquired into?

Mr. Streeter: As I said earlier, the practice of inquiring about the potential affiliations of potential JPs has been going on for generations. What I do not know is whether it took place under the last Liberal Government. That was such a long time ago that I suspect that records are no longer kept.

Crown Office, Edinburgh

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the mechanism for liaison between his Department and the Crown Office m Edinburgh. [33688]

Mr. Streeter: The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Crown Office consult each other as necessary where they share an interest.

Mr. Dalyell: I gave notice of this question to the Lord Chancellor this morning. I meant no offence to the Parliamentary Secretary. Lord Mackay knows a good deal about the Scottish situation and about Lockerbie, and is a senior member of the Cabinet.
Will the Government consider the offer made at the weekend by the Foreign Affairs Minister of South Africa, Mr. Nzo, to host an inquiry into Lockerbie in South Africa?

Mr. Streeter: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us notice of his supplementary question, which Lord Mackay shared with me this morning.
We believe that a trial anywhere in any third country is unacceptable, for reasons well known to the hon. Gentleman. Here are two of them: it would be wrong to allow those accused of terrorist offences to dictate where and how they are tried; and it would not be right to accept the proposition that a trial in Scotland would not be fair.

Mr. Hawkins: Can my hon. Friend inform the House whether the liaison between the Crown Office in Edinburgh and his Department would be affected in any way if there were a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers? The Labour party is now in such confusion between its Front Bench, its Back Benches and all other parts of the party about the matter that it is important to know the answer to that question.

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. The liaison between my office and the Crown Office in Edinburgh would clearly be confused if there were a tax-raising Scottish Parliament. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who tabled the question, will continue to persevere with probing his colleagues about the West Lothian question, to which we have had no satisfactory response.

Dr. Godman: On the very serious question of Lockerbie and leaving aside party political scoring, does the Lord Chancellor agree with the oral statement made by the Prime Minister in this place three months ago in response to a question of mine that such a trial will take place in Scotland at the High Court?

Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the last exchange, but he should read the question on the Order Paper: it is about consultation between my Department and the Crown Office in Edinburgh. On the hon. Gentleman's substantive question, I know of no knowledge to the contrary.

Legal Aid

Dr. Spink: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he is taking to reduce spending on the legal aid fund. [33689]

Mr. Streeter: My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor expects shortly to announce his proposals for reform of the legal aid scheme. It would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt that announcement. We are already taking steps to control the costs of the legal aid scheme, such as measures to investigate the means of apparently wealthy applicants and the introduction of graduated fees in the Crown court. The White Paper proposals will take us further.

Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend share my constituents' concern that a man who was dying of cancer and had his life saved by the excellent national health service against all the odds should seek to use public funds to sue the very doctors who saved his life rather than allowing those funds to be used in the health service?

Mr. Streeter: I share my hon. Friend's concern, as do most British taxpayers. My hon. Friend is a champion of the interests of the British taxpayer in relation to legal aid. He will be encouraged to know that under our proposals, to be issued tomorrow, we intend to take positive, radical measures to crack down on the weak and trivial cases which are making all too frequent an appearance in the local newspapers. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that, when I heard about the case that he has mentioned, I asked the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board to come to see me on Wednesday to explain how on earth legal aid could be made available in such a case.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people were eligible for legal aid in 1979; and what is the current figure. [33690]

Mr. Streeter: We estimate that in civil cases 74 per cent. of households qualified for legal aid in 1979. The figure for civil legal aid today is 48 per cent. There has been no reduction in the number of people eligible for criminal legal aid since 1979.

Mr. Prentice: Is it not appalling that the number of households eligible for legal aid should drop from more than three quarters in 1979 to less than half now? Is it not an incontestable fact that the only people who can get legal aid now are those on the breadline and that the income cut-off is £7,400? Is it not a case of justice denied when the only people who can get access to the courts are those whose wallets or purses are fat enough?

Mr. Streeter: I believe that the hon. Gentleman lives on a different planet from me. Although the number of households eligible may well have fallen in the past 17 years, that is partly a reflection of rising living standards. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that acts of assistance have risen from 1.9 million to 3.5 million today. Legal aid funding has risen in the past five years to £1.4 billion. The hon. Gentleman clearly believes that that is not enough. If £1.4 billion is not enough, it is incumbent on him and his party to tell us today how much we should spend and where the money should come from.

Mr. Congdon: Is my hon. Friend aware that, far from being concerned about restrictions on legal aid, my constituents are concerned about its generosity, particularly in civil cases? Does he share my amazement that this country should grant civil legal aid to someone deported as an illegal immigrant who wishes to pursue a civil case in the courts of this country?

Mr. Streeter: Once again, my hon. Friend is on to a good point, which we will talk about in more detail tomorrow when the White Paper is issued. He should know that every working person in this country


contributes £60 a year to the legal aid fund. I think that is enough. If the Opposition do not, they should tell us how much it should be.

Mr. Boateng: Given the ever-increasing cost of the legal aid fund to the public and the ever-reducing number of the public who are able to benefit from it, when will Conservative Members and their Government stop hitting the hard-pressed litigant, who happens to be funded by the public, and start dealing with the restrictive practices of the legal profession? Why do we hear so much about the litigant and so little about the lawyer? When will the Government tackle the restrictive practices in the legal profession, because if they do not, we will?

Mr. Streeter: Even I think that that is a bit rich coming from someone who makes his living out of the restrictive practices of the legal profession. The hon. Gentleman has failed to tell us whether a budget of £1.4 billion is enough. He says no, so how much more should be spent, and where will it come from?

Mr. Jessel: Does not my hon. Friend's figure of £1.4 billion suggest that litigation is one of the fastest growing industries in Britain? Is it not growing much too fast onward and upward? Surely it is self-evident that, if people want to have a divorce, they should not have it at the expense of their fellow taxpayers. We are getting much too much like the Americans and it is time that something was done about it.

Mr. Streeter: I have a great deal of sympathy with that question. If we have a free market it is not for us to say who should or should not litigate, but we can control the extent to which the British taxpayer funds such litigation. We will bring forward legal aid reforms tomorrow to ensure that the British taxpayer gets more bang for his buck.

Mr. Janner: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will arrange for legal aid to be extended to industrial tribunals. [33691]

Mr. Streeter: We have no plans to extend legal aid to industrial tribunals.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister understand how important industrial tribunal cases are? Does he understand that it is wrong that there are no circumstances in which any litigant in any industrial tribunal case can get legal aid, even though the Government have rightly moved wrongful dismissal cases up to £25,000 to tribunals at the request of the litigant and even though there are no upper limits on compensation for sex, race or

disability discrimination cases? Will he please have another look at the matter and consider whether those cases should not be included for proper legal aid help?

Mr. Streeter: Thousands of cases each year come before the industrial tribunals, and I believe that most of them are informal, well run and produce the sort of justice that we want to see. Once again, an Opposition Member has stood up in the House and called for more public expenditure. It really begins to stick in the throat when Labour Members call for more public spending in the House and then rush out to the television cameras to say that under a Labour Government there would be no more spending and no more taxes. Which is it?

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much was paid out of the legal aid fund in green form costs in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [33692]

Mr. Streeter: Between 1991–92 and 1995–96, the gross cost to the legal aid fund in respect of green form advice for each year was as follows: —£100 million; £125 million; £147 million; £141 million; and £145 million. Over the same period, total legal aid payments have risen by £688 million from £1,097 million to £1,784 million.

Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful to the Minister for such a detailed reply. May I impress on him the need to ensure that those people who do benefit from green form legal aid, advice and assistance continue to do so in any forthcoming review of legal aid? The people who bring that type of work to solicitors are very often the most needy in society, and are definitely unable to afford to pay for work privately. May I impress on the Minister the need to ensure that this core necessity remains?

Mr. Streeter: At last a sensible and reasonable question from an Opposition Member. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. There will be a radical reform of the legal aid scheme under the proposals to be announced tomorrow but, whatever we do, we will ensure that those who really need access to justice and cannot afford it will be adequately catered for under the new regime.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: How confident is my hon. Friend that the green form scheme is not being used to lure ordinary members of the public into a legal morass, more for the solicitor's benefit than for that of our constituents?

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He will be interested to know, as I was this morning, that the Law Society has come out against our legal aid reform plans, even though it does not yet know what they are. The Government are increasingly able to be guided by the principle that, if the Law Society is against it, it is pretty firm evidence that we are on the right track.

Point of Order

Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I inform you that, in Committee Room 11 last Wednesday, there was a meeting by the Right Now group, whose editor describes himself as "your neighbourhood Nazi"? Is it right that such vile extremist groups should be meeting in the House in this way, and is it right that the Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), should have addressed that meeting, as other Conservative colleagues have addressed previous meetings of that extremist group?

Madam Speaker: I have no objection to extremist groups of the right or, for that matter, extremist groups of the left, meeting in the House, provided that the room is properly booked by a Member and that the Member remains there throughout. If Members have an objection to extremist organisations coming into the House, perhaps they would refer the matter—or, if they wish me to do so, I will do so—to the Administration Committee if they would like this matter to be looked at afresh.
I do not favour extremist groups—I find them totally objectionable—but if Members invite them into the House and accept responsibility for them, whether they are extremists of the right or the left, I think we should go ahead in the tolerant way in which we deal with things in the House.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: There can be no further points of order. I have made my views known.

Mr. Hughes: It is on an aspect of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman raised a point of order with me. He asked me, under a point of order, for a ruling. I have given that ruling. If the hon. Gentleman has another matter to raise, of course I will listen to it.

Mr. Hughes: I have no knowledge of that meeting, and of course I accept and agree with your ruling, Madam

Speaker. I was seeking to ask you to remind the hon. Members of the courtesy of telling Members if they intend to raise their names on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman did not say whether he had advised my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). Frankly, I found the suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone would be associated with an extremist group ridiculous.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made a most important point. When calling into question another Member of the House, it is crucial that that Member be so informed. What is said may or may not be accurate. I am not aware whether it is accurate in this case or not, but I hope that—[Interruption.] Just a moment. I have not finished. I hope that the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) informed the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). Did he do so?

Mr. Hain: I did not, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: In that case, I reprimand the hon. Gentleman. We have all been here long enough now—the hon. Gentleman since 1992—to know the common courtesies of the House, and I think this should be carried out.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Given that you have said that you disapprove of extremist groups, Madam Speaker, how is an extremist group defined in this place?

Madam Speaker: I cannot define an extremist group, but I can tell the House that at the next election I shall be fighting Militant Tendency and the National Front. I call them both extremist groups, and I am very happy to take them on.

BROADCASTING BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS] [No. 2]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Broadcasting Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the inclusion of provisions about tax in connection with transfers and other disposals of property, rights or liabilities which subsist for the purposes of or in connection with or are otherwise attributable to the BBC transmission network, as defined in the Act.—[Mr. Wood.]

Order of the Day

Broadcasting Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that it is unusual to query the selection of amendments and new clauses—or perhaps not so unusual. Am I right in saying that the criterion for selection is whether an amendment is in order and within the terms of the long title of a Bill? If an amendment or new clause satisfies that, there is no reason why it should not be selected. Is that right?

Madam Speaker: That is certainly one criterion for selection, but there are a number of important other criteria, such as whether an issue has already been discussed in Committee. I take them all into consideration.

Mr. Maxton: In that case I wonder whether you would like to compare new clause 1 with new clause 12. New clause 1 has not been selected; new clause 12 has. While not exactly the same, the contents of at least the first paragraph of each new clause are exactly the same. I should hate to think that one has been selected and the other has not because the latter was tabled by Back Benchers and the former by Opposition Front Benchers.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me to give reasons for my selection or non-selection. I spent a great deal of time this morning considering both new clauses—indeed, I practically know them by heart. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the best debate possible can be held on the new clause that I have selected.

Ordered,
That the Broadcasting Bill [Lords], as amended, he considered in the following order, namely, New Clauses, New Schedules, amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 33, Schedule 1, Clauses 34 to 69, Schedule 2, Clauses 70 to 100, Schedule 3, Clauses 101 to 122, Schedule 4, Clauses 123 to 125, Schedule 5, Clauses 126 to 128, Schedule 6, Clauses 129 to 134, Schedules 7 and 8 and Clauses 135 and 136.—[Mr. Wood.]

New clause 23

TAXATION PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFER SCHEMES

'. Schedule (Transfer schemes relating to the BBC transmission network: taxation provisions) (which makes provision about tax in connection with transfer schemes) shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Sproat.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 31—Transfer schemes: successor companies.

New clause 17—BBC pensions—
'—(1) The trustees of the BBC Pension Scheme shall refer to the Secretary of State, before such date as he may specify, the division and distribution of the relevant assets which is to be made for the purpose of making a transfer payment to a pension scheme established for their employees by a person or persons specified in a scheme under section 110 of the Act (the specified person): any such division and distribution of those assets and liabilities shall not be made by the trustees except—

(a) with the consent of the Secretary of State, or
(b) in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2).
(2) Where any such division and distribution is referred to the Secretary of State under subsection (1), he may by order direct that the relevant assets shall be divided and distributed by the trustees in such a manner, and such a time, as is specified in the order; and any provision of—

(a) the pension scheme established by the specified person referred to in subsection (1, or
(b)any enactment relating to occupational pension schemes, including any enactment relating to transfer values,
shall not have effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with the division and distribution of those assets in accordance with any such order. 
(3) When making an order under subsection (2) the Secretary of State shall have regard to the interests of all classes of persons who are for the time being beneficiaries under the scheme referred to in subsection (1).
(4) In this clause, "the relevant assets" means the assets held by or on behalf of the trustees and "the trustees" means the trustees of the Scheme referred to in subsection (1).
(5) An order under subsection (2) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

Government new schedule 2—Transfer schemes relating to the BBC transmission network: taxation provisions.

Government new schedule 3—Transfer schemes' relating to the BBC transmission network: successor companies.

Amendment No. 51, in clause 125, page 104, line 36, at end insert—
'(1A) Any such scheme shall make explicit provision requiring the maintaining during the 25 years following the transfer of transmission services in less populated areas of at least as good a quality as obtained at the time of the transfer.
(1B) In subsection (1A) "less populated areas" means any counties with a population density of below half the average population density of the United Kingdom as a whole.'.

Amendment No. 255, in clause 125, page 104, line 36, at end insert:—
'(1A) Any such scheme shall make explicit provision to ensure equality of access to transmission services in all areas of the United Kingdom, irrespective of population density.'.

Government amendments Nos. 10 and 141.

Amendment No. 52, in clause 126, page 105, line 16, at end insert—
'(3A) The Secretary of State shall not approve any transfer scheme which does not make explicit provision for the maintaining during the 25 years following the transfer of transmission services in counties with below half the average population density of the United Kingdom as a whole of at least as good a quality as obtained at the time of the transfer.'.

Amendment No. 254, in clause 126, page 105, line 16, at end insert—
'(3a) the Secretary of State shall withhold his consent for any scheme which does not provide for the enhancement and subsequent maintaining of transmission standards during the 25 years following the transfer in areas whose population density is below half the average density for the United Kingdom as a whole.'.

Government amendments Nos. 139, 140 and 164.

Mr. Sproat: There will be a number of occasions during our deliberations today when Government new clauses and Opposition amendments have quite properly been grouped together. For the convenience of the House, I propose to speak first to the Government new clauses and amendments and then to listen to what others have to say about theirs. I will then reply afterwards—

Dr. John Cunningham: But briefly.

Mr. Sproat: I shall do my best. I am glad that we can start by agreeing.
The amendments fulfil the commitment that I made in Committee to table an amendment on Report to achieve broad tax neutrality in the sale of the BBC's transmission assets. Similar arrangements have been made in the past in relation to Government privatisations. While we have agreed that the proceeds arising from the sale of licence fee-funded assets should be available to the BBC rather than returned to the Exchequer, we feel that it would be wrong effectively to tax the licence fee payer in relation to the sale of these transmission assets.
We have agreed with the BBC that the proceeds of sale will be invested in the digital technology that will be necessary for the corporation to maintain its place as the United Kingdom's main public service broadcaster.
The purpose of new clause 31 and new schedule 3 is to clarify certain technical and accounting aspects of the sale of the BBC's transmission services and to provide the BBC with greater flexibility in its structuring for sale. That will enable the BBC to achieve maximum value for the assets.
The purpose of amendments Nos. 139 and 141 is to make it clear that the transfer scheme relating to the BBC's transmission assets can take place for a consideration, which can be shares or securities. The amendments simply provide for flexibility for the structuring of the sale so that the BBC is best able to achieve maximum value from the arrangements.
Amendment No. 10 concerns the commitment that I gave in Committee to table an amendment, for the avoidance of doubt, so that pension rights and liabilities are capable of being transferred by the BBC in accordance with the transfer scheme established under clause 125. The amendment would add pension rights and liabilities to the list of property to which such a scheme may relate at paragraph 3 of schedule 5. Therefore, pension rights will be brought explicitly within the scope of the transfer scheme. Under clause 126, the Secretary of State's approval is needed for any transfer scheme made by the BBC which will provide an additional safeguard for BBC transmission staff.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: New clause 17 deals with the transfer of the pension rights of employees of the BBC transmission service. It has been grouped with the range of issues to which the Minister has just referred. I have no objection to any of his proposals and I do not intend to debate them any further.
The Labour party seeks to secure fair treatment for the 850 employees who will be transferred into the private sector as a result of the proposed sale, should it go ahead.
It appears that a regular feature of privatisation legislation is a detailed debate on pensions. Indeed, most privatisation legislation contains a sizeable schedule relating to pensions, which is carefully scrutinised and often improved—as was the case in relation to the other two privatisation Bills that I have examined in Committee: one relating to the British Technology Group in 1991–92 and the other to AEA Technology in 1994–95.
The Bill, as it stands, contains nothing on pensions for those employees, and our new clause attempts to remedy that situation. The issue of pensions for the BBC's employees was debated in another place and in Committee. On both occasions, Ministers promised that amendments would be brought forward to safeguard the pension rights of BBC employees when they transferred to new companies.
The Government's response to the concerns that were raised in the other place and in Committee has been to table amendment 10, which adds the words:
rights and liabilities of the BBC under any agreement or arrangement for the payment of pensions, allowances and gratuities,".
to an existing section of the Bill on transfer schemes. The problem is that the existing section of the Bill—paragraph 3 of schedule 5 on page 143—is only about rights and liabilities that shall be capable of being transferred and not about those that it will be compulsory to transfer. In Committee, the Minister said:
the Government will introduce an amendment on Report for the avoidance of doubt along the lines of what is provided for the Broadcasting Standards Council in schedule 4(4)."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 June 1996; c. 638.]
However, schedule 4(4) is a much more positive statement than amendment No. 10. It includes a statement to the effect that service before the transfer date will count as the equivalent after the transfer date. The Government are not avoiding doubt by introducing this amendment—they are increasing doubt in the minds of the BBC's employees.
The Labour party's new clause 17 is much the same as that which was tabled in Committee, and it was suggested to us by the Broadcasting, Entertainment and Cinematographic Trades Union, which represents many staff in BBC transmission. The Government have claimed that the new clause is defective in that it seeks to match the provisions contained in the sale of the Independent Broadcasting Authority.
However, the important part of the new clause is the granting of powers to the Secretary of State to intervene in the division of assets. The Secretary of State should have that power and should be prepared to use it so that the staff of BBC transmission get a fair deal. It should not be left to the BBC to decide what is correct or what is best for its employees. However good its intentions may be, it cannot guarantee it—only the Minister can.
The employees in this case are entitled to a fair deal, and they are not getting a fair deal from the Government's present proposals. I trust that, on reflection, the Minister will see fit to accept our new clause. It does not instruct him to do anything other than to oversee the transfer of funds—something that has been done in every previous case.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: We have heard about protecting the interests of the BBC and of pensioners—and quite rightly so. My amendments Nos. 51 and 52 and those tabled by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) are about protecting the interests of viewers—particularly those in areas of low population density, including much of Scotland and of Wales.
It seems peculiar that so few conditions are attached to the legislation in relation to privatising the BBC transmission network. As I understand it, the BBC will draw up a scheme that will be approved by the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I assume that any approval of that sort would depend on close liaison with the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland. However, I do not think that that process is enough. When the railways were privatised, there were detailed provisions to protect the services and the users of those services. Those provisions were in primary, and not simply secondary, legislation. The railways privatisation included a minimum service requirement and the privatisations of British Telecom, electricity and gas followed the same pattern.
I ask the Minister—it is not a rhetorical question; it requires an answer—what will stop a privatised transmission company deciding to run down the network in less populated areas on the grounds that they are not commercially viable or attractive? What guarantees can the Minister offer that that will not occur? We need guarantees to the effect that television reception will be provided as of right and that there will be no marginalisation or disadvantaging of peripheral regions or regions of low population density.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 52, which I have tabled, introduce minimal requirements. I look forward to hearing not only how those requirements can be guaranteed but how provision can be made for new developments. How will the privatised transmission system ensure that that occurs?

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I remind him that any scheme devised under the Bill will not be subject to formal approval or amendment by the House.

Mr. Dafis: That is correct. Measures of that sort should receive the assent of the House and I assume that that provision should be in the legislation. They should be part of the process of placing orders or regulations, which would bring decisions back to the House. The legislation gives serious cause for concern. We shall return to the question of transmission in a later debate, but I ask the Minister to consider my questions carefully now.

Mr. Andrew Miller: In Committee there was a useful exchange on the subject of pensions. At column 646 of the Hansard report of 11 June, the Minister agreed that accrued benefits should

not be the sole criterion and that accrued surpluses are important. He said that he would consider the points that were raised and see whether they could be embodied in legislation at Report stage. I am disappointed with Government amendment No. 10 because it fails to do that. That is regrettable, as there was constructive debate about pensions in Committee.
There is no doubt that people face great difficulties when their pension arrangements are affected by changes of ownership. Many examples of that kind have been raised in the Chamber. It seems quite extraordinary that, when we have the opportunity to protect those people's interests, the House does not use its full powers so to do. That is why I think that hon. Members should consider carefully new clause 17 moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie).
Several factors must be taken into account when considering a change of ownership such as this. If it were an ordinary private sector transaction, there would be commercial considerations on both sides which I suspect that the Minister would argue would put it outside the scope of the House. No doubt he would argue that matters of commercial consideration were involved. In this case, the matters are not just of commercial consideration but are of relevance to viewers and listeners, to the employees and to the House. New clause 17 would enable the Minister to exercise common sense and control over the debate in the interests of all those parties. At the top of the list for consideration should be those people who have paid into the scheme—as we would expect if our pension fund were being discussed. The clause, as drafted at the moment, fails to take into account the interests of the employees and I urge the Minister to think carefully about the alternative in new clause 17.
In many other cases, the Government have exercised control in a variety of ways over the disposal of pension funds that have come under their control. One approach was adopted for the sale of Amersham International and, in subsequent privatisations, a different style was adopted. I am not arguing for one version or another: I am simply saying that the adoption of new clause 17 would give the Secretary of State the power to consider all the issues from the point of view of the fund members and to exercise that control in their interests, especially in relation to any surpluses. We had this exchange in Committee, and it is not unreasonable to argue that surpluses should be divided in the interests of those people who have contributed to the fund. The Minister accepted that point in Committee, but the Bill as drafted would not give him the appropriate power. I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to that point. He may be able to convince the House that the Bill will provide that power, but I believe that it will not.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I endorse many of the points that have been made by Opposition Members, but I wish to speak specifically about amendments Nos. 254 and 255, which are similar in content and intent to those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis).
I wish to mention especially the Glenlivet and Marypark areas of my constituency. People may know those names through the wonderful product that conies from Glenlivet and it is my pleasure to represent such a wonderful area. I have tabled amendments Nos. 254 and 255 so that I can remind the Government that the 200


people who live in that community are denied equality of access to television. Most houses in the area—this fact may surprise many people—get only fuzzy reception of BBC1 and Grampian, and Channel 4 and BBC2 are blacked out. I accept that communications in that area are difficult, but it seems ludicrous that more consideration and encouragement has not been given over the years to ensure that our people—in an area that provides so much money for the Treasury—have equal access to television channels.
The lack of reception affects everyone in the community. It affects the elderly population, some of whom are housebound, and it affects the young. Indeed, the local head teacher at Inveravon primary school has to ensure that educational tapes are made elsewhere for him to show to the young children in his care. This is a strong moral argument and I wish to hear what the Minister has to say on it. I have raised the problem with the Department of National Heritage and others over several years. The community council has been in touch with the Department and was appalled by the response that the people should resolve their problems by plugging into cable, which would entail running 80 miles of wire up to the nearest outlet in Aberdeen. The people regard that as ludicrous.
The Department's response to me of 21 March said:
I was sorry to hear about the reception problems that some of your constituents have been having.
That was hardly a positive response. It went on to say that, because of the 200 people involved and the nature of the landscape,
it … appears unlikely that a further transmitter will be built.
It then sent advice in the context of self-help television. Our people should not be asked to deal with the problem. They have a national right to have their television reception dealt with.
The only positive response that I received was from the Independent Television Commission. Mr. Brian Marjoribanks, the officer for Scotland, said in his letter of 7 March:
should the Government announce an extension to the relay building programme beyond 1996, we will undertake to commission National Transcommunications Limited to conduct a new survey in the Glenlivet area in the hope that a solution may be found.
Will the Government extend that relay building programme or can the people of Glenlivet, Marypark and Inveravon expect to be in the same position many years hence?

Mr. Sproat: In tabling the new clause, hon. Members have highlighted concerns about the pension rights of the BBC transmission staff following the privatisation of the BBC's transmission services. Similar amendments were tabled on Third Reading in another place and in Committee. My noble Friend Lord Inglewood agreed to consider the matter further. I, in turn, undertook to introduce an amendment on Report to make it clear that the transfer scheme for which the Bill provides could include pensions arrangements. I have done so.
Let me explain briefly why the amendment is inappropriate. It seeks to apply to the sale of the BBC transmission assets provisions drawn from the 1990 Act in relation to the sale of the IBA transmission assets.
When the IBA's transmission network was sold, the whole of the IBA's business was divided up and the transmission network was sold by the Government.
The BBC's position is different. The BBC itself is handling the sale and the bulk of its business will continue. The BBC pension fund will remain in existence to meet its continuing liability to some 44,000 beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries. The two situations are therefore not analogous.
None the less, we recognise that pensions are of critical concern to the staff of BBC Transmission, which is why we have introduced the amendment to which I referred earlier. The precise arrangements will depend on the identity of the purchaser, but the BBC has agreed with the trustees of the BBC pension fund that, should employees wish to transfer their accrued benefits to an appropriate scheme operated by the purchaser of Transmission, the transferred value will be a full and fair valuation of their pension rights. The BBC has stated that it will use its best endeavours to have a buyer who operates a final salary scheme, as the BBC's is. It is right that the BBC should negotiate the arrangements with staff and their representatives, as it has with other such transfers of work. The BBC will offer independent financial advice to all those affected.

Mr. Miller: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sproat: I am about to discuss accrued surpluses. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to ask about something else?

Mr. Miller: Will the Minister confirm that he said that the transfer will include employees' pension rights? In that context, does he mean the benefits that they have accrued under the rules thus far, or their share of the pension fund?

Mr. Sproat: It means the former. We are talking about accrued benefits. If the scheme is a final salary scheme, the employees will get what they would have got if they had retired at the age at which they are moving to the new transmitter service.
We discussed accrued surpluses in Committee. If the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) looks at clause 126, he will see that it says that the Secretary of State has to approve any transfer scheme. I hope that that will give him the reassurance he seeks that the BBC cannot transfer the scheme without parliamentary approval. Clause 126 specifically states, for once in words that are understandable by someone who is not a lawyer, that the Secretary of State has to agree to the transfer. If she does not agree, the transfer cannot go ahead in its existing form.
4 pm
It is true that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) raised the matter of accrued surpluses in Committee. I said then and I repeat today that it is an important matter. I went back to my officials and we discussed whether it would be appropriate in this case to transfer accrued surpluses; the answer I received was that it would not be. As I have said, we agreed in Committee that accrued surpluses were an important consideration.
However, I now understand that the BBC scheme is a defined benefits scheme. Employees pay 4.5 per cent. of their salary for defined pension benefits, related to final salary; the BBC meets the rest of the cost.

Mr. Miller: indicated assent.

Mr. Sproat: I did not know when I began all this that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston was something of an expert in these matters. Anyway, the BBC meets the rest of the cost. Any surplus or deficit is a BBC responsibility and it therefore remains with the main scheme. I hope that although the hon. Gentleman is clearly unlikely to agree with me, he will understand why we decided that it would not be proper for the 850-odd staff who were being transferred to the new organisation to get a share of the accrued surplus.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I am trying to follow what the Minister is saying. Is he saying that the contributions made by employees would not be part of that surplus?

Mr. Sproat: I am saying three things. First, any employee who is transferred to the new undertaking will have the option of taking the accrued benefit to the new undertaking. Secondly, the employee will have the option of leaving the accrued benefit in the BBC scheme, knowing that it will be uprated by RPI every year up to a limit of 10 per cent. a year. Thirdly, the employee can transfer the accrued benefit to a private scheme. I was saying to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston that it would not be appropriate to divide up any part of the accrued surplus and to hand that over.

Mr. Forsythe: Who will estimate the total value of the pension fund? Which actuaries will be involved? Will there be actuaries representing the BBC, will there be actuaries representing the new firm and will Government actuaries be involved in order to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion?

Mr. Sproat: That is a very fair question. The answer is that the BBC will take the advice of its actuaries; no doubt the new undertaking that purchases the transmission service will have its own actuaries. In addition, under clause 126, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to approve the transfer of the scheme and she will agree to a transfer only if she is convinced by the Government actuaries that it is a fair way in which to do things.

Mr. Miller: Am I right in assuming, therefore, that if there was, say, a £1 million surplus attributable to the past contributions of the people transferred into the new company, the BBC could take a £1 million pension holiday? That would be much to the advantage of the licence payer, but clearly to the detriment of the 850 employees.

Mr. Sproat: What will happen is quite clear. I can see that I shall not convince the hon. Gentleman that it is not just clear but right. I believe that our proposal is right. I looked at the matter carefully after the hon. Gentleman's comments in Committee. The accrued surplus will remain with the BBC; it will remain for the pension fund that

will service the 44,000 other BBC employees who will remain in it rather than for the 850. The 850 over 44,000 share will not be transferred because keeping a surplus is the responsibility of the BBC pension fund. The BBC provides the fund and it must maintain it for the benefit of the 44,000. However, I understand that under the proposed scheme, the three options that I set out to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe) will be available and the BBC will give every possible financial advice to those employees transferred as to which of the three options is best for them.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 52, tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), seek to ensure that the quality of transmission services in less populated areas will be maintained for 25 years following the privatisation of the BBC's transmission network. The hon. Gentleman's concern is understandable, but I hope to convince him—in this case, at least—that it is unnecessary.
Under the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the agreement between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the BBC, the ITC and the BBC are responsible for establishing and maintaining the standards of quality, coverage and reliability of the four main terrestrial channels. That did not change when the IBA's transmission network was privatised in 1991 and it will not change with the privatisation of the BBC's transmission network.
As the hon. Gentleman will know from our previous discussions, the ITC and the BBC have achieved 99.4 per cent. coverage for their services in the United Kingdom and 98.3 per cent. in Wales. That impressive level of service will be maintained following privatisation.
The Government have already pledged that analogue transmissions will not be switched off until a roughly equivalent level of service is provided by digital terrestrial television. That will ensure that the interests of all viewers—including those in sparsely populated areas—are protected.
I hope that hon. Gentleman will be reassured that the privatisation of the BBC's transmission network will in no way disadvantage people in less populated areas of the country and withdraw his amendment.
I now turn to amendments Nos. 254 and 255, tabled by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). Having had the honour to represent her part of the country, I well understand the strong feelings of people there. The amendments seek to ensure equality of access to transmission services for those living in less populated areas, following the privatisation of the BBC's transmission services. The amendments would provide for the quality of transmission services in such areas to be enhanced and then maintained for 25 years following privatisation.
Let me first reassure the hon. Lady and the House that the privatisation of the BBC's transmission network will in no way disadvantage people in less populated areas. I explained why a few moments ago in answer to hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. It is a long-standing principle of Government policy that broadcasters are not required to provide a television service to every potential viewer because of the cost and the technical difficulty of reaching small and scattered communities. That followed the recommendation of the


Annan committee in 1977 that there should be no obligation on the broadcasting authorities to provide satisfactory coverage to communities of fewer than 500.

Mrs. Ewing: People in those areas are required to pay the same licence fees as everyone else, but they do not receive the same level of service. Could there be some adaptation in the light of that?

Mr. Sproat: Again, I know from personal experience that that irritates many people in those areas, but alas the television licence is no guarantee of the quality of reception; it simply gives permission to receive reception. I hope that some of the problems that the hon. Lady mentioned will be addressed and improved when we get digital television. In the meantime, I can say only that the Annan committee made that recommendation in 1977 and successive Labour Governments—for a few months, anyway—and Tory Governments have stuck to that principle.
The Government have pledged that analogue transmissions will not be switched off until a roughly equivalent level of service is provided by digital terrestrial television. That will ensure that the interests of all viewers—including those in sparsely populated areas—are protected, so I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment in light of that assurance.

Mr. Dafis: rose—

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken on this group of amendments, so I am afraid that I cannot allow him to do so again. I must put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 31

TRANSFER SCHEMES: SUCCESSOR COMPANIES

'. Schedule (Transfer schemes relating to the BBC transmission network: successor companies) (which makes provision about the accounts etc. of wholly-owned subsidiaries of the BBC to which any property, rights or liabilities are transferred in accordance with a transfer scheme) shall have effecr.—[Mr. Wells.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 25

LOCAL LICENCES

'.After section 106 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"Variation of local licence following change of control

106A.—(1) Any local licence granted to a body corporate before the commencement of this section shall be taken to include—

(a) a condition requiring the body to give the Authority advance notice of any proposals known to the body that may give rise to a relevant change of control, and
(b) a condition requiring the body to provide the Authority, in such manner and at such times as they may reasonably require, with such information as they may require for the purposes of exercising their functions under subsection (3).

(2) Subsection (3) applies in relation to any local licence which—

(a) was granted before the commencement of this section,
(b) is held by a body corporate, and
(c) has not previously been varied under that subsection.

(3) Where, in relation to any local licence to which this subsection applies—

(a) the Authority receive notice, in pursuance of a condition imposed under subsection (1) or section 88(2)(d), of any proposals that may give rise to a relevant change of control, or
(b) a relevant change of control takes place (whether or not that change has been previously notified to the Authority),

the Authority may vary the licence, by a notice served on the licence holder, so as to include in the licence such conditions as they consider appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that the character of the local service is maintained after the relevant change of control.

(4) Subject to subsection (5), any new or varied condition imposed under subsection (3) in relation to any matter may be more onerous than any existing condition imposed under section 106(1) in relation to that matter; and in this subsection "existing condition" means a condition of the licence as it has effect, or had effect, before the relevant change of control.

(5) The Authority may not under subsection (3) include any new or varied condition in a licence unless the new condition or the condition as varied is one which (with any necessary modifications) would have been satisfied by the licence holder—

(a) during the three months immediately before the relevant date, or
(b) if the Authority consider that the performance of the licence holder during that period is not typical of its performance during the twelve months before the relevant date, during such other period of three months during those twelve months as they may notify in writing to the licence holder;

and for the purposes of this subsection "the relevant date" is the date of the relevant change of control or, if earlier, the date on which the Authority exercise their powers under subsection (3).

(6) The Authority shall not serve a notice on any body under subsection (3) unless they have given it a reasonable opportunity of making representations to them about the variation.

(7) Where, in any case falling within paragraph (a) of subsection (3), a notice under that subsection is served before the change to which it relates takes place, the variation shall not take effect until the change to which it relates takes place.

(8) The power in subsection (1) of section 106 to vary conditions imposed under that subsection includes power to vary conditions imposed under subsection (3).

(9) In this section "relevant change of control" means a change in the persons having control over the body holding the licence." '—[Mr. Sprout.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Sproat: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause arises from the commitment that I gave in Committee on 21 May to discuss with the Radio Authority what further safeguards might be necessary following our liberalisation of the ownership of local radio licences.
A number of hon. Members expressed concern that our liberalisation could lead to predators purchasing existing licensees simply to use that licence to transfer an existing


AM service on to digital. We are confident that the promises of performance attached to licences can be rigorously enforced to prevent that, and I point to the Radio Authority's recent imposing of fines on a number of stations that failed to remain within the terms of their promises as evidence.
However, the Radio Authority expressed concern that many of the existing promises of performance were drafted in general terms when there were tighter limits on the ownership of more than one station in a local area. The authority pointed out that such promises might not be a sufficient safeguard against the concerns that hon. Members had raised. The new clause will therefore enable the authority to revise local licences upon a change of control in order to write tighter promises of performance that accurately reflect the character of the station's output immediately before the change of control.
I stress that the new clause contains the minimum powers necessary for the authority to update promises of performance in the light of the more liberal ownership regime introduced by the Bill. The authority's power applies only to licences issued before the ownership liberalisation takes place and licences can be varied only on one occasion. The new clause, which the authority has welcomed, balances strengthening licences drafted in a tighter ownership regime with the Bill's deregulatory spirit.

Dr. Moonie: We welcome the Government's new clause. A very long list of amendments has been made, and it is interesting how often the Government have taken account of comments made by hon. Members of all parties. Like the Minister, I commend the new clause to my hon. Friends.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 8

THE QUALIFYING TELETEXT SERVICE

'.—(1) If the public teletext provider has notified the Commission under section 2(4A) of his intention to provide a teletext service for broadcasting in digital form as a qualifying service, he shall submit to the Commission his proposals for providing that service in compliance with the requirements specified in subsection (3).

(2) The Commission shall give their consent to the provision of the service unless it appears to them that the proposed service would not comply with the requirements specified in subsection (3).

(3) The requirements referred to in subsections (I) and (2) are—

(a) that the service includes a sufficient amount of news items which are of high quality and deal with both national and international matters,
(b) that the service includes a sufficient amount of information which is of particular interest to persons living within different areas for which the service is provided, and
(c) that (taken as whole) the service includes a sufficient amount of information (other than news) which is calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests.

(4) Where the Commission have given their consent under subsection (2), they shall vary the relevant licence held by the public teletext provider so as to include such conditions as appear to them to be appropriate—

(a) for imposing on the public teletext provider, in specified circumstances, an obligation to provide the qualifying teletext service, and

(b) for securing that the qualifying teletext service, if provided, accords with the proposals submitted under subsection (1);

and they may include those conditions in any other licence under which the analogue service is subsequently provided.

(5) Sections 6 to 12 of the 1990 Act (general provisions relating to services licensed under Part I of that Act) shall apply in relation to the qualifying teletext service as they apply in relation to the analogue service, but as if the reference in section 12(1)(6) of the 1990 Act to the Commission's functions under Chapter II of Part I of that Act included a reference to their functions under this Part.

(6) In this section—
"the analogue service" means the service referred to in section 49(2) of the 1990 Act,
"the relevant licence" means the additional services licence (within the meaning of Part I of the 1990 Act) under which the analogue service is provided.'. — [Mr. Sprout.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Sproat: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 56 to 66.

Mr. Sproat: The new clause and the consequential amendments fulfil a commitment made to the public service teletext licence holder, Teletext Ltd., that there should be no requirement to simulcast its existing analogue service on the capacity on the channel 3/Channel 4 multiplex reserved for it. That would be unnecessarily restrictive, and would deny Teletext the opportunity to use the new technology to its fullest potential.
The new clause therefore allows Teletext to propose to the ITC a new service to be broadcast on the reserve capacity. That service must meet the same general quality threshold required of the existing analogue service, but Teletext is free to suggest new ways in which to do that, rather than having to meet specific minimum requirements for numbers of pages on certain subjects, as it had to do to obtain its analogue licence.
If the ITC is content with Teletext's proposals, the existing licence will be varied accordingly to allow a new digital service to be broadcast. There will be no change in the licence conditions covering the analogue service.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 26

DIGITAL BROADCASTING OF GAELIC PROGRAMMES

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the Commission to include in any multiplex licence granted in respect of one frequency to which section 26 applies such conditions relating to the broadcasting of programmes in Gaelic for reception wholly or mainly in Scotland as may be specified in, or determined by them under, the order.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order require the holder of a multiplex licence ("the holder"), in complying with any such conditions, to broadcast programmes in Gaelic supplied by each of the persons mentioned in subsection (4) ("the suppliers") amounting to such minimum number of hours (if any) of transmission time per year as may be specified in the order in relation to that supplier.

(3) For the purpose of enabling the holder to comply with any such conditions and any obligation imposed by virtue of subsection (2), it shall be the duty of each supplier to provide the holder, free of charge, with such programmes in Gaelic which have been broadcast by the supplier as the holder may request.

(4) The suppliers are—

(a) the BBC,
(b) the Channel Four Television Corporation,
(c) any holder of a Channel 3 licence to provide a regional Channel 3 service (within the meaning of Part I of the 1990 Act) for reception wholly in Scotland, and
(d) such other persons providing television broadcasting services as may be specified by order by the Secretary of State.

(5) Subsection (3) shall not apply in relation to any programme first broadcast by the supplier concerned—

(a) before I January 1993, or
(b) in the period beginning on 1 January 1993 and ending on 31 March 1997, if the supplier has no right to broadcast it again or has such a right but is not entitled to transfer it to the holder.

(6) The holder may broadcast any programme supplied by virtue of subsection (3) on one occasion only.

(7) The holder shall consult Comataidh Craolaidh Gaidhlig and the suppliers about—

(a) the quantity of programmes likely to be requested by the holder from each supplier by virtue of subsection (3), and
(b) the schedules proposed for the broadcast by the holder of programmes supplied by virtue of that subsection.

and shall have regard to any comments made as a result of such consultation.

(8) Any order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(9) In this section "Gaelic" means the Gaelic language as spoken in Scotland.'.—[Mr. Sproat.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Sproat: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 39—Financing of programmes in Gaelic out of Gaelic Television Fund—
'(1) Section 183 of the 1990 Act (financing of television programmes in Gaelic out of Gaelic Broadcasting Fund) is amended as mentioned in subsections (2) and (3). 
(2) In subsection (6) there is inserted after the second 'Committee', "for broadcast on an analogue service". 
(3) After subsection (6) there is inserted:—
(6A) The Committee shall seek to coordinate the provision of Gaelic television programmes broadcast in Scotland using digital capacity on a multiplex service; and may do this by applying for a digital additional service licence under section 22 of the Broadcasting Act 1996, either:

(a) on its own, or
(b) in association with other interested bodies.".'.

Mr. Sproat: The new clause will increase the amount of Gaelic television programmes broadcast at peak time in Scotland. As I stated in Committee, the Government intend to place an obligation on the ITC to ensure that the operator of the third digital multiplex service includes in Scotland a minimum of half an hour of Gaelic programmes in peak time every day as part of its service. The clause also places an obligation on existing broadcasters of Gaelic programmes to make available free of charge Gaelic programmes that they have previously broadcast for retransmission as part of the digital multiplex service.
I must make clear that the Government intend that any additional costs should be met entirely by the broadcasters and not by the Gaelic Television Committee. To this end, we will be asking the ITC to monitor the costs of committee-funded programmes closely to ensure that the broadcasters do not pass on additional costs to the committee. Taken together, the new measures will significantly increase the amount of Gaelic programming available at peak times in Scotland, and I hope that they will be warmly welcomed by the Gaelic-speaking community.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I welcome the measure contained in new clause 26, which will help to put in place the mechanism to allow the proposed half hour of Gaelic programmes to be broadcast on one of the new digital.multiplexes. While the measure is broadly acceptable, will the Minister clarify what he understands to be the purpose and effect of subsection (4)(d)? If the Gaelic Television Committee were to become a broadcaster in its own right, will that subsection enable it to provide programmes directly to the multiplex holder?
I commend to the Minister and to the House new clause 39, standing in my name and that of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). The Gaelic Televison Committee welcomed the Government's announcement in Committee on 9 May that a minimum of half an hour per day would be allocated for Gaelic broadcasts on one of the new digital terrestrial channels. This has been seen as a definite step in the right direction, but there is concern that the committee will still be unable to operate as a broadcaster. The Gaelic Television Committee may still be held to ransom by broadcasters to subsidise what they decide are the Gaelic programmes that they ought to put out.
There may be some conflict of interest between the 68,000 Gaelic speakers, to whom the Minister referred, and the wider community that has been targeted by the makers of Gaelic programmes—with some considerable success—in Scotland. The Gaelic Television Committee is anxious that the interests of the Gaels should not be overlooked.

Mr. Dafis: Does the hon. Gentleman look forward to the day when similar provision as is made for Gaelic speakers in Scotland and Welsh speakers in Wales is made for speakers of the Irish language in Northern Ireland? Would he welcome the establishment of an Irish language television fund or committee that could provide programmes to be shown on the new Irish language television channel, Teilifis Na Gaelige, emanating from the Irish Republic?

Mr. Maclennan: I should be interested to see such a development if it stemmed from Northern Ireland. Most British Governments would be interested to hear such proposals, but it is not for me to put Erse words into the mouths of broadcasters in Northern Ireland. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about that interesting possible development.
I am anxious to ensure that the most cost-effective means of providing Gaelic services on the third multiplex is achieved. I believe that it could be, if provision were made for the committee to co-ordinate the feed of Gaelic


programming into the third digital multiplex and for that committee or its agent to be licensed by the Independent Television Commission to provide the programme service to the multiplex operator. That is the purpose behind new clause 39.
There is concern that there is an imbalance between the power of the broadcasters and the duty of the committee, which is essentially a funder—in some cases, funding up to 100 per cent.—and is operating without a great deal of influence over the content of the programmes that it is funding. That situation requires statutory rectification. I hope that the Government will look with favour on that proposal.
The Gaelic Television Committee is a representative body and it has shown considerable expertise. It would discharge the role of broadcaster well. It would be in line with what would seem to be the Government's intentions—stepping up the provision of Gaelic—if they accepted the new clause.

Sir Hector Monro: As one of the instigators of the early-day motion that was signed by a large number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House suggesting that we give additional support to the Gaelic Television Committee, I think that the Government have reacted, bearing in mind what a success Gaelic broadcasting has been. I have visited the studio in Stornoway and met those involved. There has been warm acceptance throughout Scotland of the number of hours of Gaelic television shown. Indeed, a great many people who cannot speak Gaelic enjoy watching the programmes with subtitles. I am glad about the Government's reaction, and I welcome the new clause.

Mr. Sproat: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) for the tremendous work he did when he was at the Scottish Office to ensure that there was such an increase in Gaelic broadcasting. I am sure that the Gaelic-speaking community will be grateful to him for all he did.
I thank the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for his explanation of his new clause. He wants to create out of the Gaelic Television Committee a body quite different from that set up under the Broadcasting Act 1990. As I explained in Committee, the statutory powers of the Gaelic Television Committee are confined to the payment of grants. It is exercising those powers to good effect, as shown by its figures for the number of hours of Gaelic programmes being transmitted.
The committee's structure, which was devised to take into account the scale of the Gaelic-speaking community and the nature of the broadcasting industry, remains valid at this stage in the evolution from the analogue to the digital age. Moreover, the Government have provided for the multiplex provider to consult the committee on the nature and scheduling of the programmes to be broadcast.
In response to the question of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, I emphasise, however, that I do not see a role for that committee as a broadcaster. It is a grant-giving and advisory body, and it is not our intention that it should be a broadcaster. Potential applicants for the third digital multiplex—

Mr. Calum Macdonald: The Minister will know that the intention is to open up the supply of

programmes into the digital field. Can he clarify subsection (4)(d) of new clause 26, and say whether the Gaelic Television Committee could be one of the suppliers mentioned in that subsection, because that would go a long way to meeting the concerns of the committee about being able to provide a supply of programmes when the digital field comes on stream?

Mr. Sproat: No, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. That is what I was trying to tell the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. The Gaelic Television Committee is an extremely important body, both in the grants and advice that it gives and the part it has played in the success of increasing the number of Gaelic programmes in Scotland. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries said, many people who do not speak Gaelic enjoy watching the programmes with subtitles.
Having said that, I must add that we do not envisage an expansion of the role of the Gaelic Television Committee into the kind of supplier referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I emphasise, however, that the extra 30 minutes each day in peak time in Scotland, and the free giving of programmes that have already been transmitted by the BBC, STV or Grampian, constitute a major increase for the Gaelic-speaking community. For the moment, we are leaving it there.

Mr. Macdonald: Who are the
other persons providing television broadcasting services
mentioned in subsection (4)(d)? Does that specifically rule out the Gaelic Television Committee, or does it leave open a question that might be decided at a future stage?

Mr. Sproat: The persons referred to in the subsection are any other persons that the multiplex operator decides should provide services. It could mean Channel 5, or it could be a group that the committee helped to put together. There is no reason why that should not happen, but the committee itself cannot be a broadcaster in the strict and proper sense of the term.
Potential applicants for the digital multiplex can expect the Independent Television Commission to give careful consideration to their proposals for consulting the Gaelic community in general, and the Gaelic Television Committee in particular. I hope that I have convinced the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that he should not press new clause 39.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 32

POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE IN RELATION TO CODE ABOUT PROVISION FOR DEAF AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED

'(1) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) amend subsection (1B) of section 20 by substituting for any percentage specified there a percentage specified in the order, and
(b) require the Commission to include in the code maintained under that section the requirement that in each week, at least a percentage specified in the order of so much of any digital programme service or qualifying service as consists of programmes which are not

excluded programmes for the purposes of that section in relation to presentation in, or translation into, sign language is to be so presented or translated.
(2) In subsection (1) "qualifying service" does not include the qualifying teletext service.
(3) Before making an order under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult the Commission.
(4) No order under subsection (1) shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'—[Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government new clause 33—Compliance with code about provision for deaf and visually impaired.
Government amendments Nos. 165 to 171.

Mrs. Bottomley: As the House will be aware, the Commons Committee voted to accept the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on signing, subtitling and audio-description. The effect of those amendments was to introduce a requirement on multiplex providers to ensure that, by 10 years from the commencement of digital terrestrial television, 95 per cent. of all programme hours should be subtitled, 10 per cent. should be presented in sign language and 50 per cent. should be accompanied by audio-description for blind and partially sighted people.
The Government fully appreciate the importance of television to people with sensory disabilities, as a source of information, education and entertainment and as a vital link to the outside world. I share my hon. Friend's concern that we should do everything possible to make television more accessible, and congratulate him on the splendid way in which he has conducted a very effective campaign to achieve his ends—although it was somewhat bruising at times.
This is a matter on which we have a good record. The proportion of programmes subtitled on analogue terrestrial television has risen steadily in line with the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990, for which I commend my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). That proportion continues to rise, and will be replicated on digital terrestrial television as part of the existing broadcasters' simulcasts. This is a point on which there has been some misunderstanding, so let me be unequivocally clear. The subtitling requirements on the existing terrestrial broadcasters will apply to their digital simulcasts, and will continue after analogue switch-off.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has pressed us on these issues in order to secure further concessions. As he will know, my noble Friend Lord Inglewood explained the position admirably in another place, as did my hon. Friend the Minister of State—to whom I shall pay tribute on many occasions, both on Report and on Third Reading—in Committee. While we remain genuinely sympathetic to my hon. Friend's cause, we believe that the existing provision in the Bill would severely, and perhaps fatally, damage digital terrestrial

television's prospects, with a consequent loss of services for all viewers. That concern has been shared by the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and the ITC.
The television companies and the ITC made three essential points. First, the target quotas are set at an impracticably high level. A requirement to subtitle 95 per cent. of programming would be virtually unworkable. Some programmes—for example, some live studio debates—are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to subtitle at the moment.
4.30 pm
For sign language interpretation, the technology which would enable viewers with a home personal computer to trigger an animated signer from subtitles is not yet available. Without it, sign interpretation requires a significant amount of digital capacity, thus reducing the amount available for programmes. Research into the possibilities for audio-description is at an early stage. The limitations of the technology and its application are largely unexplored.
The second point of concern is that the current provisions do not take account of the nature of the programmes to be broadcast. In the digital era, many channels will be themed, showing a narrow range of programmes appealing to specific audiences or special interest groups. For some of these—for example, movie channels—subtitling will not pose any great technical difficulties, but other channels will have real problems.
Placing a 95 per cent. subtitling requirement on a live sport or live studio discussion channel is unrealistic at the present time, and would effectively disbar such programmes from appearing on digital terrestrial television, which would mean a loss of services for all viewers.
Thirdly, the cost of implementing the targets constitutes a serious threat to the competitiveness of digital terrestrial broadcasting, and so a significant disincentive to investment.

Mr. Miller: Will the Secretary of State explain how she arrives at the costs that she estimates? Has she based her assessment on the current technology used for providing such services, or on those which are under development in a wide range of research laboratories?

Mrs. Bottomley: I hope that some of the costs will fall, but at the moment subtitling requires a great deal of work by highly trained staff, using sophisticated and expensive video and computer equipment. My information is that it takes a year to train a subtitler, who can then subtitle about 30 minutes of screen time in a working day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has pressed on me the case for subtitling on many occasions. I understand that, in 1995–96—I am sure that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is right that there has been progress since then—the BBC subtitled approximately a third of its network schedules. That cost it £4.7 million. The ITV Association estimates subtitling costs at £570 per programme hour. Costs of that order would be prohibitive for small companies, and would effectively bar new broadcasters from the market—the very broadcasters whom we hope will introduce a fresh diversity of new and innovative programming services into the digital arena.
At the heart of this matter is the need to find a solution which improves access for those with sensory disabilities, without imposing impracticable requirements on broadcasters which could jeopardise the viability of digital terrestrial broadcasting and the advantages that it will bring to all viewers. The aim of the Government's new clause and amendments is therefore to establish targets set at a realistic level and apply them, through the ITC code, to programme rather than multiplex providers.
Amendment No. 168 provides that, by the 10th anniversary of the introduction of any digital programme service, not less than 50 per cent. of non-excluded programme hours broadcast in any programme service should be subtitled to such technical standards as are specified by the ITC, and that not less than 10 per cent. of non-excluded programme hours broadcast should be presented with audio-description.
These target percentages are amendable by order. I will have the power to increase them to reflect future technological advances. This picks up the point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. So not only is what we propose the first rung on the ladder, but there is a clear and convenient mechanism for adding further rungs in response to improved technology, without the need for further primary legislation.

Mr. Rowlands: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Lady, but will she explain why no obligation should be placed on the multiplex operators? In Committee, it was discovered that multiplex operators would be involved in quality of programming and a host of other issues related to programmes. Surely there should also be some obligation on the multiplex operators.

Mrs. Bottomley: The secret is to have an arrangement which delivers the results in the most effective way possible. The issue is the responsibility and work of the programme maker rather than the multiplex operator.
We want to avoid everyone at every level taking on an additional element of involvement. We want the right body to deliver the results. As my hon. Friend the Minister explained most persuasively in Committee, that right body is more appropriately the programme maker rather than the multiplex operator. I believe that that is a pragmatic approach, based on which body will deliver the results most effectively. As with virtually every other part of the Bill, we have been at pains to listen to the regulators about what would deliver the result most effectively, as well as to listen to the views of hon. Members and other experts.
The targets will be specified in the Bill as matters that must be included in the ITC's code. Adherence to that code will be a licence condition for all broadcasters. So we believe that we have the proper mechanisms in place to deliver the improvements that the House is seeking.
In view of the early stage of development of the technology associated with on-screen sign language, we have decided that it would not be appropriate to set a percentage target in the Bill for sign language presentation. New clause 32, however, contains a power for me to set such a target by order, after consultation with the ITC, as soon as the technology permits.
Since finalising the new clause, I have talked further with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West and others, and I have reconsidered the position in the light of the strength of the arguments that they have put to me. I have

therefore decided, after the necessary consultation with the ITC, to introduce by order a 5 per cent. target for sign language. I have been convinced that that will give the spur needed to broadcasters to make positive efforts in that area, without imposing unachievable targets upon them.
I recognise that that target will be demanding for broadcasters, but I am sufficiently satisfied that it was the introduction of a numerical target in the Broadcasting. Act 1990 that caused the substantial changes that we have seen. We should replicate that experience.
Amendment No. 168 provides that the ITC may exclude certain types of programmes from the targets set in the Bill. The ITC will identify, in consultation with broadcasters and, most importantly, organisations representing the interests of those with sensory impairments—my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West was right to press for that—which types of programme should be excluded. In so doing, the ITC will draw on its expertise in this area to determine the types of programme for which it would not be practicable to require the levels of assistance set out in the Bill, or in the order.
But let me emphasise, and make it unequivocally clear, that we expect those exclusions to be the exception rather than the rule: the vast majority of programme services will be subject to the targets set out in the Bill. Also, exclusion does not mean complete exemption. It simply means that lower targets than those appearing in the Bill should be applied. I am writing today to Sir George Russell to emphasise those points, and I can make that letter available.
There can be no doubt that the proposals represent real gains for viewers with sensory disabilities. The existing broadcasters will continue to meet the subtitling target set under the 1990 Act on analogue; those requirements will read across to digital as part of those broadcasters' simulcasts, and will remain in place after analogue switch-off. Furthermore, in addition to maintaining existing broadcasters' subtitling responsibilities, the proposals will also ensure that a similar proportion of new digital programming will be subtitled. By any calculation, that represents a considerable increase in the overall amount of programming that will be available with subtitles.
Our proposals also provide that, for the first time, a firm target of 10 per cent. is set for audio-description for existing and new broadcasters. I have also now made it clear that there will be a 5 per cent. target for sign language. Again, that will apply to the simulcast services as well as to the new channels.
Our proposals also recognise that many different types of programme service are likely to be broadcast on digital television, and provision of subtitling, signing or audio-description at the same level will be extremely difficult for some of those programme types.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I simply want to ask whether the 5 per cent. target for sign language represents 5 per cent. of all programmes that are broadcast or 5 per cent. of those after the excluded programmes have been removed? Can the right hon. Lady clarify that?

Mrs. Bottomley: As I have explained, there is room for exemptions for all the numerical targets, but they will be a minority. Programmers will be set the 5 per cent. target, but they may be allowed some exemptions. As the letter to Sir George Russell makes clear, however, those exemptions must be a minority and dealt with exceptionally.

Mrs. Campbell: That was not the point I was making. I asked whether 5 per cent. was 5 per cent. of all programmes broadcast or 5 per cent. of those remaining after the excluded ones had been taken out.

Mrs. Bottomley: It is 5 per cent. when the excluded ones have been taken out, but the key is that there must be the strictest interpretation of the exclusions.

Mr. Dafis: Does the Secretary of State have any calculation of what the percentage of the total would be?

Mrs. Bottomley: What I made clear was that I expect the exemptions to be an absolute minimum, so I expect broadcasters to achieve their targets as set out on the face of the Bill.
The change is very significant. The credit should go to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West for his persistence and vigorous championing of this cause. People with sensory disabilities have every reason to appreciate all that he has done.
I very much hope that the House will accept the new clauses.

Ms Angela Eagle: One of the highlights in Committee was holding a debate on this extremely important issue and making some progress—in fact, defeating the Government when we tabled the original amendment, which the amendments before us water down considerably. Argument raged around the idea that audio-description, subtitling and sign language would grow of their own accord. Those of us who voted for the amendment in Committee knew that, on the contrary, a quota was needed. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted that, but I am extremely disappointed by the low levels of quota that seem to be being accepted.
We are talking about a quota of only 5 per cent. for sign language, but that is 5 per cent. of an already lower total, because exclusions will be allowed. The Secretary of State has refused to estimate what that 5 per cent. may be as a percentage of total programmes broadcast; it is a pity that she did not feel able to do so.
When she replies, will the Secretary of State tell us why programmes will be allowed to be excluded? All three different ways of communicating with people with sensory deprivations are extremely sophisticated in their own right. Anyone who has seen someone signing a song knows that it is the most incredible experience to see how effectively sign language can communicate. I wonder why any programmes should be excluded. By doing so, we are saying that people who have these disabilities can be excluded from a whole section of programme making. I can think of no reason why there should be exclusions.
I am disappointed by the low percentages of coverage of the targets to which new clauses 32 and 33 refer. I do not see why we could not have tried to do better for the many millions of people who suffer from sensory

deprivations, to try to include them in the digital revolution at a time when the technology has finally allowed extra space in the spectrum to enable us to broadcast these extra visual helps to those with sensory deprivations, without interfering directly with mainstream channels.
There is no need for the terrible box at the side in which one must watch the signer; these services could be broadcast on a completely different channel. The watering down that has resulted in new clauses 32 and 33 has denied us a real opportunity to include in the digital revolution millions of our fellow citizens who suffer from these disabilities.
I welcome the Government's acceptance of the principle that a quota is the way to progress. I am bitterly disappointed that the Secretary of State could not have ensured that the percentages for coverage with these new services for those with sensory deprivations were much higher than the 5 or 10 per cent. of a total that, because of her issue about excluded programmes, is already lower than what our original amendment, tabled in Committee, would have allowed.
Millions of people with disabilities will be bitterly disappointed by the very modest targets that the Secretary of State has set herself, and by the fact that the chance seems to have passed her by to include millions of our fellow men and women with sensory deprivations in the digital terrestrial broadcasting revolution.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The announcements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mark several significant steps forward for people who are profoundly deaf and for the blind. On the face of it, the three amendments that I forced through in Committee—admittedly, with the help of the Opposition parties—set very high thresholds, and made a very significant move forward. I shall seek to explain why the House should accept this compromise.

Ms Eagle: It is too modest.

Mr. Hughes: I will come to that, if the hon. Lady stops seeking to interrupt.
I am very grateful to all those people who helped me to put pressure on for those things—not only people in the lobbying organisations, but Members on both sides of the House. Specifically, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), the former Secretary of State, was very influential, and I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Eltham.

Mr. Hughes: I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) was influential in these matters as well.
The Bill provided a one-off opportunity. We had to achieve a very specific agenda for the profoundly deaf and for the blind—to get thresholds on to the face of the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, had we not had the specific and escalating threshold for subtitles in the Broadcasting Act 1990, we should not have been in the position we are in now.
My right hon. Friend adopted a slightly different approach, but she has set in train the same thing. We have the 10 per cent. threshold for subtitling, which is the same as before; we have the 10 per cent. threshold for audio-description; and now, by order, we shall have the 5 per cent. threshold for the in-vision signing.
Provided that the House adopts my right hon. Friend's new clauses, their structure enables my right hon. Friend or any other Secretary of State of any party to increase those thresholds by order at any time that appears sensible. My right hon. Friend has sought to produce a compromise, holding the ring between the interests of the profoundly deaf and the blind and those of the industry trying to expand into this new digital era.
The broadcasters' arguments were over-egged. In private, they would tell one, "Well, of course we said that this would make digital television unaffordable, but perhaps we were laying it on a bit thick, and, yes, we could afford these things, although we would prefer to spend a bit less on them." One should bear that attitude in mind when being lectured by their documentaries about what the Government or Opposition or anyone else should do.
In achieving that balance, my right hon. Friend allows anyone to monitor what is going on, and allows a future Secretary of State to say, "There has been so much progress technically that I can now increase this threshold or double that one, and I can put pressure on the broadcasters." Therefore, the facilities available to the profoundly deaf and to the blind will escalate.

Mr. Maclennan: I admire the trenchant way in which the hon. Gentleman moved his amendments in Committee. I recognise too that politics is the art of the possible. But does he accept that the order-making power to which he refers could be used in either direction—to lower as well as increase the targets? That is the risk of the approach that we may be urged to adopt.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, I certainly considered that. I think it extremely unlikely that a Secretary of State would lower the targets, or be able to get that through the House. I had many dealings in government with the private Members' Bills on disability of a couple of years ago, so I know what strong feelings are generated on both sides of the House when it comes to this important subject. I therefore believe that the movement will be upward.
The list of excluded programmes worried me a lot. They were an invention by the Department. The consultation document issued by my right hon. Friend included a wide range of programmes that would be excluded, some of which were already subtitled and enjoyed by profoundly deaf people. For instance, "Top of the Pops" has a large audience of deaf people. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has already mentioned deaf signing for songs, which can be a moving spectacle. I myself have heard a number of deaf choirs sing in churches.
All this is well understood, so it was quite wrong to include such programmes in the list of exclusions. The same goes for sports programmes; in general, they should not be excluded, either. Euro 96 has been subtitled and enjoyed by many deaf people. The point that the industry has strongly made, to me and my right hon. Friend, is that there is scope, with the new digital services, for experimental programmes—mostly live services—that

might cost almost as much as the original programmes' budgets. It was therefore right to allow programme makers to negotiate lower targets with the ITC, so as to get the services under way.
As my right hon. Friend said in her letter to Sir George Russell,
programmes to which different targets apply are likely to be those which are predominantly live, though this might change as technology develops.
Certainly, technology is changing all the time, and in-vision signing and subtitling will be generated automatically, at least on some programmes, to a standard acceptable for those sorts of programme. Other programmes, however, will always need more detailed subtitling work.

Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman has negotiated in detail with the Government on this matter. Is he happy that no obligation is to be placed on multiplex operators?

Mr. Hughes: I did discuss that with my right hon. Friend. As she said a few minutes ago, it is a matter of pragmatic judgment. I thought the same as the hon. Gentleman when I framed the amendments to which we agreed in Committee. But my right hon. Friend's officials believe that the matter is best left to the programme makers. It is difficult to argue with that. It was indeed my view that the multiplex route was better, but that was only a personal view. What really matters is whether the services are going to be provided. Since they are, I will not argue about whether the obligation should be on the multiplexes or the programme providers.
This change will mean a great deal to the profoundly deaf and the blind: it is a great step forward for them. It provides them with access to entertainment that was beyond their grasp before. The new clauses will give them increasing access to the programmes they want to watch.
I know that the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, to whose officials I spoke earlier this morning, regards the move as a significant step forward, and believes that it should speed up in years ahead. The Royal National Institute for the Blind, of course, would like more audio-description. What is proposed in that area is relatively modest, and I trust that my right hon. Friend and her successors will continue to see what is possible. I think that this service could be increased more quickly than some of the others.
A constituent of mine, Phyllis Knowles, who has been profoundly deaf from birth, first interested me in deaf choirs, and so on, when I became a Member of this place in 1987. She invited me to be the president of the Harrow deaf club, a position I still hold. I am sure that she, who lobbied for many years for a fair deal for deaf people, would endorse what my right hon. Friend has done today.
Unfortunately, however, I attended her funeral last Thursday; just two weeks ago she was tragically killed in a car accident. She was a brave lady who never gave way, and who always believed that another step in the right direction could be taken. I believe that she, like others who are profoundly deaf or blind, would have welcomed what we are doing today.

Dr. John Cunningham: Historically, the broadcasters always resist advances for people with sensory disabilities. That is a well-known fact. When considering


the amendments agreed to in Committee, the Secretary of State has obviously come down on the side of the broadcasters at the expense of people with disabilities. The proposals represent a retrenchment of the position we agreed in Committee.
I heard the Minister say, in the context of an earlier amendment, that a very large number of people would like Gaelic programmes with subtitles. I must inform him that there is a much larger group of people, nationwide, who would like to watch all programmes with subtitles—there are millions more of them. That is the target on which he should be concentrating; he should be thinking of the many who are deaf or hearing impaired.
The Government have been too negative in their approach throughout. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), a Back Bencher, and note that it is only because of his persistence—with the support of all the Opposition parties—that these provisions found their way into the Bill at all. Why was nothing included in the legislation at the outset? That is surely the acid test of whether the Government wanted anything done for people with disabilities. But there was nothing of this type in the Bill until the hon. Gentleman had the courage and persistence—supported by my hon. Friends and members of the minority parties—to move his amendments in Committee.
The Government are embarking on a new form of broadcasting. There has been a great deal of hype about the revolutionary nature of the technology. One of the big selling points of digital television has been the development of the highly successful multi-media industries. These are multi-million-pound businesses, not impoverished little organisations. The other big selling points are better pictures and sound, and more choice of channels.
It is rather misleading to claim more choice for people with sensory disabilities, however. There will be no more choice for them as a result of this technological innovation and expansion unless significant advances of the kind envisaged by the Committee are made on their behalf. If they are not, one of the Government's central claims for the introduction of this legislation will be denied.
One of the advantages of digital television is that it should be possible to add subtitles, sign language and audio description much more easily than at present. We currently have the capacity and the technology, but the willingness to use it more generously on behalf of people with disabilities is absent.
I listened carefully to the speeches of the Secretary of State and of the hon. Member for Harrow, West—I wanted to hear what he had to say before I spoke in the debate. The Secretary of State referred to cost—we are talking about highly profitable companies that are looking to expand their activities as a result of the legislation. The Secretary of State mentioned a figure of a few million pounds. If she is thinking about the cost. she should take the number of households that have one member with some impairment and then multiply that number of households by the amount of the BBC licensing fee. She will see that the licensing fee received from those households alone is much higher than the cost to which she referred. I do not accept her argument—nor will the millions of people about whom we are talking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) referred to the movement of technology. I expect that voice recognition packages for technology will be

commonly available in the period envisaged in the original amendments discussed in Committee. As my hon. Friend said, they are already available in some circumstances. I believe that they will be commonly and cheaply available in the future. With the rapid advances of technology, there is no reason to suppose that this will not be significant in reducing the cost.
5 pm
Contrary to what the Secretary of State claimed, the Government have a bad record, not a good one on support for people with disabilities—as we have seen repeatedly in the Chamber, over the years, in our attempts to give disabled people the rights that others enjoy. The Government do not come out of this well. The right hon. Lady has said that she is responding positively to what the Committee decided and to what her hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West wants. However, she is responding at a level that is much lower than that envisaged by the Committee when it decided to make the changes.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West said that the Royal National Institute for Deaf People is happy about the compromise. He urged hon. Members to accept the compromise—as he is apparently doing—because the Royal National Institute for Deaf People is happy about it. However, the Royal National Institute for the Blind is less happy about the compromise. The hon. Gentleman did not say anything about the British Deaf Association or about the Deaf Broadcasting Council. Will he tell the House whether they are happy about the compromise? The Deaf Broadcasting Council wrote to all Members of Parliament on 26 June, and stated:
The RNIB, RNID, British Deaf Association, and Deaf Broadcasting Council do not consider that these steps come near to adequately meeting the needs of the people we represent. Therefore we urge you to resist any efforts to remove or weaken these amendments in next week's debate. An attempt to this end is almost certain to happen.
The council knew very well that such an attempt would come from the Government.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has raised a fair point. Naturally, all the organisations that he mentioned—they lobbied collectively—would be happiest with the highest possible thresholds. However, they have always understood that the important thing was to get thresholds into the Bill and the mechanisms within it, so that future Secretaries of State could increase them. That is the context in which I said what I did.

Dr. Cunningham: From what the hon. Gentleman has said, it is clear that not all the organisations that represent people with sensory disabilities are happy about or supportive of the Secretary of State's position—I put it no more strongly than that.

Ms Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend think that it is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) seems to be saying that, now that we have the mechanisms in the Bill, it is for future Governments to do a much better job than his Government have done?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I was coming to that point. The warning bell was rung by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) when he said that giving Secretaries of State discretionary powers is often a


double-edged sword, because they can use them in many different ways—sometimes generously and benignly, and sometimes negatively and unhelpfully. We have yet to see the draft order, and it may be couched in terms that will allow only increases rather than decreases. That would be a hopeful sign.
There has been much comment about programme exclusions. Hon. Members should not seek to list programme exclusions—I believe that this is what the hon. Member for Harrow, West sought to do originally, and what the Committee agreed to do—but should seek to include as many people with disabilities as possible in the broadcasts of programmes and events that those of us who are fortunate enough not to suffer any of these disabilities enjoy regularly and as a matter of course in our everyday lives. I believe that that is the positive way in which legislation should approach these problems—and I shall wait for the Secretary of State's response. For those reasons, I ask hon. Members to resist the changes set out in the amendment.

Mr. Roger Gale: It is a great sadness that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) should come as a Johnny-come-lately to the debate and seek to—

Dr. Cunningham: Just for the record—as the hon. Gentleman always begins his speeches with these sorts of comments—I have come to the debate at the exact same time, and on the same occasion, as the Secretary of State.

Mr. Gale: If the right hon. Gentleman had waited until I had finished my first sentence, he might have taken it in context. It is a great sadness that he has come as a Johnny-come-lately to the debate, apparently for the specific purpose of denigrating the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The Westcliffe house Royal National for Institute for the Blind home and the Royal School for Deaf Children are in my constituency. I take a particular interest in matters affecting the community. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) for putting his case. However, I felt unable to support his measure—he knows this, we have discussed it—in Committee. As someone who has been involved in broadcasting for almost 30 years, I believe that what he proposes is practically and technically impossible—certainly not realisable within the context of the transfer from analogue to digital broadcasting and in the context of the investment that is necessary in digital broadcasting.
It does not surprise me in the slightest that Labour Members choose to pay no account whatever to cost. Cost is a consideration which must be taken into account, particularly by small television companies. It is blindingly obvious that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot possibly put forward any quota of programmes that might be discounted by the Independent Television Commission. That power has been given to the ITC, and it has been made clear to the House that that power will be used sparingly.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I understand that this is why my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has chosen graciously to accept the Government amendments—has taken the sentiments expressed on both sides of the Committee and translated

them into something practicable, not something that is blue sky, pie in the sky, unrealisable and, therefore, unfair to the people whose hopes we might have raised.

Mr. Miller: I thought that you understood the technology.

Mr. Gale: I do understand the technology and. as a result, I recognise the financial constraints placed on small companies by a blanket coverage of the kind suggested in Committee. Today we have proposed a workable step forward which has been recognised as such by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the RNIB. This morning, I received a letter from two constituents, Mary McCann and Peter Gallagher, who are pupils at the Royal School for Deaf Children. They say:
As deaf people the provision of Sign Language interpreting and subtitles is very important because both facilities help us to access the information.
We do not want subtitling reduced. Without it we cannot understand the programmes and are denied information.
We understand that interpreting can be distracting and therefore could not be offered on many programmes. However, we hope that the Breakfast News will still be subtitled.
Please will you put our feelings forward to Parliament".
My right hon. Friend has met their concerns. She made it plain this afternoon that the existing subtitling that is available on analogue television will be transferred to simulcast when digital and analogue are simulcast and will then be rolled over into digital when analogue is taken off air.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to his constituents—who correctly make the point that sign language interpreting and subtitling improve their understanding of television programmes—that, if that provision is available on the new digital services, viewers who are not hard of hearing will be able to turn off the services and therefore not be distracted by them? I hope that that is understood.

Mr. Gale: That is not the point that my constituents were making: they want the existing service to continue. My right hon. Friend has made it absolutely plain that the existing service will be not only continued but enhanced. The Secretary of State said—to those who bothered to listen—that she would go down the path that was first trodden by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) in 1990. Those of us who served on the Committee that examined that legislation will remember clearly the way in which he introduced. a measure of subtitling that was realisable and achievable. It was a significant move forward in the provision of facilities for our constituents who suffer aural or visual disabilities. The Secretary of State has taken that a step further this afternoon—and she has done so in a measured and a realisable manner.
That is the sensible way forward. The Government's proposals are workable and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West understands that and is prepared to accept them. I hope that the rest of the House will do likewise.

Ms Liz Lynne: I am pleased that the Secretary of State has come forward with some proposals. The 5 per cent. target for sign language interpretation is


welcome, but I still do not believe that the amendments go far enough. I know that many blind and visually impaired people and many deaf and hard-of-hearing people will not feel that the Government amendments address the real problems.
For instance, I gather that subtitling exemptions will be increased from what was passed in Committee. Again, I do not honestly think that that is acceptable. That will mean that programmes that could have been seen by a large number of disabled people will not be able to be accessed. We must protect the provisions that were passed in Committee. Deaf and visually impaired people are excluded enough—there are 8.7 million deaf, hard-of-hearing or visually impaired people in the United Kingdom. On average, hearing people can listen to 672 hours of television a week. At present, only two hours of that is in sign language.
These people pay their television licence fee. There is a £1.25 reduction for blind people—that is an absolute disgrace. People are paying to be able to access all programmes. Although, as I said, it is welcome that the Secretary of State has moved to a certain extent, I believe that many people throughout the country will be deeply disappointed in the Government again. I must pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) for his work in getting the Government to move this far. It is a small step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it is only a small step and we will have to vote against the amendments.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I sympathised with the amendments moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes)—although his arguments might have been more persuasive to sympathisers like me if, in sending out extracts from the Committee transcript, he had supplied copies of the Minister's speech as well as his own. That might have given us a clearer idea of the scale of his requests.
I came to listen to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today—given my sympathies with my hon. Friend's argument—not least because one of my grandfathers was deaf and one of my grandmothers was blind. Although I understand that only one of those conditions is potentially hereditary, I lived through the experience of those disabilities in my immediate family and I sympathise with those who suffer from them.
I am not prone to disloyalty to the Government—as the Whips may be reassured to hear—and I am conscious that I have exhausted my personal quota of disloyalty to my right hon. Friend in another capacity. However, it is not merely chivalry that causes me to say that I shall support the Government this evening. My right hon. Friend has listened to the debate, responded fairly to the points put to her and been flexible. In those circumstances, I shall support her—not least on the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West.
I am happy to be enlisted in any future guerrilla force that chooses to harry both the Government and the broadcasters as soon as economics and technology allow so that further resources might be made available to those with disabilities. However, on the strength of the speech

by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) today, I shall not enlist in a force that is led by him. I have as little confidence in his grasp of the economics and the technology of this industry as I have in his understanding of the profit motive in the working of the national lottery—an issue which I suspect will haunt the Opposition in a wider context in future.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I shall not detain the House long, but I must make two or three points that have not been raised before.
I refer first to the Secretary of State's point about the 5 per cent. target for sign language interpretation and to the exempted programmes, which is a new concept in the Bill. I am worried that, if 10 per cent. of programmes are exempted or excluded, 5 per cent. of the remaining 90 per cent. is only a 4.5 per cent. sign language target. If 20 per cent. of programmes are excluded, the target becomes only 4 per cent. Therefore, the 5 per cent. target is already being whittled away: we are talking about not 5 per cent. but 4.5 or 4 per cent. All hon. Members must understand that point.
Much has been said on both sides of the House about the economics of the debate. The real problem is that we do not know what new technology will be available in a few years and how cheap or expensive it will be. We also do not know the other side of the equation. For instance, we know that 7 million people are hard of hearing, but we do not know how many of them do not believe that it is worth buying a television licence as they cannot understand the programmes that they watch. If the service can be improved, some of those people may decide to buy licences and subscribe, which will alter the economic balance.
I wish to make a further point.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Lady is wrong. The balance of the equation is not altered, because the licence fee goes to the BBC and many of the companies about which we are talking get no benefit.

Mrs. Campbell: I understand that the BBC objected to the higher limits that were introduced in Committee because of the economics. My question is whether the BBC has taken the other side of the equation into account. [Interruption.] I do not understand the point that the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) has made from a sedentary position, but I hope that the BBC will take into account the other side of the equation when it considers the economics.
There is a higher percentage of hard-of-hearing people among the elderly and those with other frailties. They need access to broadcasting, because it is one of the few means of communication that they can enjoy. On those grounds, we should seek to include them in a way that technology is at last beginning to make possible.

Mr. Miller: The House will know that I am keen to ensure that the Bill will give the broadcasting industry the best opportunity to be at the forefront of the new technologies. We should recognize—it is interesting that no Conservative Member has made this point—that we have a leading role in the technology involved in subtitling film media, including translation from foreign languages, general teletext provision and single channel provision.
The Secretary of State for National Heritage was previously Secretary of State for Health and she should know that the technologies are developing quickly. She will remember, I hope, the work undertaken by IBM, with some of our finest surgeons, to develop voice recognition technology. Rapid progress has been made, thanks to British scientists working with the national health service. It is extraordinary that the Government have failed to recognise that we have more than a fledgling industry in that area. In fact, we have a massive potential industry which the Secretary of State is ignoring. [Interruption.] I notice that the Minister of State is giving some advice to the Secretary of State. I hope that he will recognise that my point is valid.
The quality of work in subtitling cannot be underestimated and we have a massive potential business opportunity in the United Kingdom and outside, if we allow the industry to flourish. The restrictions that the Secretary of State would place on the development of the technology—by not accepting the amendments made in Committee—will undermine that potential.
Some hon. Members have referred to cost. Of course, a cost would be incurred, but no one has been able to define the level of cost of today's technology or of the emergent technologies to which I have referred. It would be ludicrous for the Secretary of State to water down the Committee's work on the basis of cost, but not to give us any real figures. She cannot give us the figures because she does not understand the potential of the technology. I urge the House to resist the Government's attempts to water down the amendments made in Committee.

Mr. Maclennan: I greatly admire the role that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has played in extracting an important concession. Unlike the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), the hon. Member for Harrow, West did not engage in guerrilla tactics: he went over the top at a time when his party are in government rather than putting his cause to one side and waiting for a change of government, although I am sure that he will want to continue his attack when that happens. The hon. Gentleman's campaign did not need guerrilla tactics: it needed a frontal assault and he recognised that. We supported him to the hilt and the changes that were made in Committee were an example of the effectiveness of cross-party co-operation. As I said earlier, Conservative Members eventually feel bound to accept the inevitable and I do not think any the less of the hon. Member for doing so.
Opposition Members are freer to speak their minds and I agree with the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that if the House were to accept the Secretary of State's view we would not go far enough. Many organisations have lobbied to increase provision for the sensorily deprived. I doubt whether the order-making power, which the Secretary of State has said that she intends to use to guarantee 5 per cent. in-vision signing, will be used to ratchet up that provision. I think that we shall see a sliding scale, which could slide down as well as up under pressure from the programme providers.
The Secretary of State was on the defensive today, as she was bound to be, because the Committee expressed its views strongly. All hon. Members will know that once the primary legislation has been debated it is much more difficult to return to the issues and to ensure that they are constantly under consideration. I hope that the many people who have followed this debate will monitor the

technology and cost implications of their suggestions on a yearly basis and will keep informed those of us who are concerned about the predicament of the sensorily deprived. I hope that people outside will press us to return to the issue regularly and frequently.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We have had an interesting and illustrative debate about these enormously important matters. We have heard, once again, the mean-spirited and grudging attitude of the Labour party. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has achieved a singular step forward for people with sensory disabilities and they have every reason to pay tribute to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who has a great knowledge of these matters because the Royal School for Deaf Children is in his constituency, gave a realistic appraisal of some of the issues involved for the industry. He said, frankly and helpfully, that the provisions would impose great pressures on the industry, especially on small start-up businesses. The Labour party will wallow in the luxury of opposition in perpetuity because it is not prepared to face the economic realities of starting up a business and of job and wealth creation.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) mentioned the innovation and success of the film and broadcasting industry. The new technology is developing because for the past 17 years the industry has worked with a Government who recognise that endlessly burdening industry with regulations, rules, interference and bureaucracy merely smothers and destroys all opportunity to provide services which were previously inconceivable.
In discussing these matters, I have been well aware of the need to promote the industry and to encourage innovation in the digital era, not just the big boys that we are used to, but some of the new players. Moreover, as a result of my previous responsibilities, I have been all too aware of the difference that new technology and communications mean to people with disabilities. That is why I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West for persisting. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet was right to say that the approach of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) influenced me greatly in pressing further than may have been reasonable the interests of those with disabilities.
I wish to make a number of issues absolutely clear. 'The Bill as originally drafted contained a code for those matters, so they were part of the original Bill although they did not appear on the face of the Bill. That is the point about which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West was so enthusiastic. On exclusions, when hon. Members read carefully the letter to George Russell they will see that I expect exclusions to be an absolute minimum. Programmes in the excluded category should be subject to other targets, which should be achievable. They should not be excluded from targets altogether. Moreover, I expect them to be improved and ratcheted up as time goes by. My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) spoke for many when he said that he will press the Independent Television Commission and the Government to ensure that those targets are raised.
5.30 pm
We want digital television to have a good start. Through the steps achieved by hon. Friend the Member


for Harrow, West, those with sensory disabilities will be at the heart of the new work from the start. It then seems right to ensure that standards improve as time goes by. My hon. Friend paid tribute to his constituent, Phyllis Knowles. We all share his sympathy in her tragic death. However, people with disabilities are so often an example in their persistence, courage and determination to achieve change. Through my hon. Friend's work, that has certainly been the case here.
I hope that the House will support these substantial improvements. They will be difficult for the industry, but they will be of profound long-term benefit to all those with sensory disabilities.

Dr. John Cunningham: The Secretary of State was less convincing the second time around than she was the first, not least because she wants the House to accept that the amendments promise more when in reality they deliver less. We shall seek to divide the House on amendment No. 166 at the appropriate time.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 33

COMPLIANCE WITH CODE ABOUT PROVISION FOR DEAF AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED

'(1) The Commission shall do all that they can to secure that the provisions of the code maintained by them under section 20 are observed in the provision of digital programme services and qualifying services.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a digital programme licence shall include such conditions as appear to the Commission to be appropriate for requiring the holder of the licence, on entering into any such agreement as is mentioned in section 19(3)(a), to submit to the Commission proposals for ensuring that the code is complied with in relation to the provision of the digital programme service.

(3) Where the holder of a digital programme licence has submitted proposals to the Commission in accordance with a condition included in the licence by virtue of subsection (2) or has failed to comply with such a condition, the Commission shall, after consulting him, vary the licence so as to include in the licence such further conditions as they consider appropriate for the purpose of securing compliance with the code in the provision of the digital programme service in question.'—[Mr. Sproat.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 28

UNAUTHORISED DECODERS.

'.—(1) In section 297A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (unauthorised decoders), for subsection (1) there is substituted—
(1) A person who makes, imports, sells or lets for hire, offers or exposes for sale or hire, or advertises for sale or hire, any unauthorised decoder shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both."

(2) The amendment made by subsection (1) shall not apply to any offence committed before the commencement of this section.'—[Mr. Ian Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government new clause 29—Apparatus &amp; for unauthorised reception of transmissions.

Mr. Taylor: This is my debut at the Dispatch Box in the proceedings on this Bill and I pay tribute to the burden that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage, took on his shoulders in Committee. The proceedings on the Floor of the House are the interesting bit, and I am delighted that he has given me a chance to take some of the amendments and new clauses that are before the House.
New clauses 28 and 29 fulfil the commitment that my hon. Friend made in Committee on 18 June, when he agreed to consider carefully the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on the then new clause 73 in relation to decoder piracy. Protection against unauthorised decoders—piracy of pay television—is considerably in advance of that in many other countries. However, some difficulties have been encountered in enforcement due to the lack of restraint on advertising unauthorised decoders for sale.
The new clauses should go a long way towards alleviating those problems. Advertising unauthorised decoders will become a criminal offence. The sale of such decoders is already an offence. The provision will also be added to those activities to which civil remedies can be applied directly by any broadcaster affected. A maximum new penalty of an unlimited fine and/or two years' imprisonment should provide a significant deterrent against those involved in the theft of pay television services.
The new clauses will be welcomed by those in the industry and I commend them to the House.

Dr. Moonie: I welcome the Minister to our proceedings, and I welcome the new clauses that he proposes.
This matter was discussed at length in Committee and it was clear that both sides felt that something needed to be done. On behalf of the Opposition, I wholeheartedly welcome this much-strengthened provision. I trust that it will be effectively applied in combating fraud.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 29

APPARATUS &C FOR UNAUTHORISED RECEPTION OF TRANSMISSIONS

'. In section 298 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (apparatus &c for unauthorised reception of transmissions), in subsection (2)(a). after "hire" there is inserted ", offers or exposes for sale or hire, or advertises for sale or hire,"—[Mr. Ian Taylor.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 9

MODIFICATION OF RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1976 IN ITS APPLICATION TO AGREEMENTS RELATING TO CHANNEL 3 NEWS PROVISION

'.—(1) After section 194 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"Modification of Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 in its application to agreements relating to Channel 3 news provision

194A.—(1) In this section a "relevant agreement" means an agreement—

(a) which is made between all holders of regional Channel 3 licences for securing the appointment by them, in accordance with conditions included in their licences by virtue of section 31A(a), of a single body corporate to be the appointed news provider for the purposes of section 31(2), or
(b) which is made between them and the body corporate appointed to be the appointed news provider for the purposes of section 31(2) for purposes connected with the appointment.

(2) If a relevant agreement is registered under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 ("the 1976 Act"), the Director General of Fair Trading shall report to the Secretary of State as to whether it appears to the Director that the agreement falls within subsection (4).

(3) If, on receiving a report under subsection (2), it appears to the Secretary of State that the agreement falls within subsection (4), he may give a direction to the Director requiring him not to make an application to the Restrictive Practices Court under Part I of the 1976 Act in respect of the relevant agreement.

(4) A relevant agreement falls within this subsection if—

(a) those provisions of the agreement by virtue of which the 1976 Act applies to the agreement do not have, and are not intended or likely to have, to any significant extent the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition, or
(b) all or any of those provisions have, or are intended or likely to have, that effect to a significant extent, but that the effect is not greater than is necessary—

(i) in the case of a relevant agreement falling within subsection (1)(a), for securing the appointment by holders of regional Channel 3 licences of a single body corporate to be the appointed news provider for the purposes of section 31(2), or
(ii) in the case of a relevant agreement falling within subsection (1)(b), for compliance by them with conditions included in their licences by virtue of section 31(1) and (2).

(5) The Secretary of State may vary or revoke any direction given under subsection (3) above if he satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances such that—

(a) the grounds for the direction have ceased to exist, or
(b) there are grounds for giving a different direction; and where the Secretary of State so varies or revokes any direction, he shall give notice of the variation or revocation to the Director.

(6) In this section—

(a) "agreement" and "Director" have the same meaning as in the 1976 Act, and
(b) "regional Channel 3 licence" has the same meaning as in Part I."

(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply in relation to any agreement (within the meaning of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976) made for the purposes of the provision of news programmes by a nominated news provider under section 31(2) of the 1990 Act as originally enacted.'—[Mr. Sprout.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Sproat: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 91.

Mr. Sproat: In Committee on 13 June, when introducing the new clauses that now form clauses 70 to 72 of the Bill relating to the provision of a single channel 3 news provider, I said that the Government were still considering the implications of those new clauses in relation to competition law. New clause 9 and amendment No. 91 are the products of that careful consideration.
The provisions of sections 31 and 31A of the 1990 Act, as amended by the Bill, will require the regional channel 3 companies to select one news provider from a pool of nominees deemed by the Independent Television Commission to be of an acceptable standard. We are concerned that the agreements between individual ITV companies to secure a single news provider, or agreements between the channel 3 companies collectively and the single news provider on the terms of the contract might be registrable under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. We are particularly aware that an agreement between the channel 3 licence holders to appoint a news provider would be a registrable agreement under the terms of the RTPA and might be referred to the restrictive practices court. That possibility arises as a consequence of the fact that the Director General of Fair Trading has a duty, subject to certain provisions of the Act, to take proceedings before the restrictive practices court.
The Government do not want to risk those agreements being referred to the restrictive practices court as a direct result of channel 3 companies complying with Government policy. However, we consider that the significance of any restrictions accepted in the agreements should be tested against the policy in the 1976 Act. The amendments are designed to bring about that result.
The provisions of new clause 9 give the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the power, on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, to direct the DGFT not to refer to the restrictive practices court any registrable agreement relating to the provision of a single news provider for the regional channel 3 network. The Secretary of State can so direct the DGFT only if, having received a report from the DGFT, it appears to him that the restrictions in the agreement which make it registrable do not significantly restrict, distort or prevent competition, or that any such restriction is not greater than is necessary for securing the appointment of a single news provider by the regional channel 3 companies. The last point is very important.
The Government's intention is to lift the threat of a referral of the agreements in question to the restrictive practices court where the restrictions are justified against the test that I have described. It is not our intention to give the channel 3 companies a free rein to make anti-competitive agreements generally in respect of the provision of news to the network. Such practices would remain subject to general competition law. Restrictions that the Secretary of State deemed greater than necessary for securing the appointment of a single news provider


could still be referred by the DGFT to the restrictive practices court, which would then decide whether they were against the public interest.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 27

AVOIDANCE OF CERTAIN TERMS RELATING TO USE FOR PURPOSE OF NEWS REPORTING OF VISUAL IMAGES FROM BROADCAST OR CABLE PROGRAMME

`PART VIA

COPYRIGHT AND RELATED MATTERS

.—(1) Any provision in an agreement is void in so far as it purports to prohibit or restrict relevant dealing with a broadcast or cable programme in any circumstances where by virtue of section 30(2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (fair dealing for the purpose of reporting current events) copyright in the broadcast or cable programme is not infringed.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) "relevant dealing", in relation to a broadcast or cable programme, means dealing by including visual images taken from it in another broadcast or cable programme, and
(b) "broadcast" and "cable programme" have the same meaning as in Part I of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.'—[Mr. Sproat.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Sproat: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause give effect to my commitment in Committee to table an amendment to safeguard news access to sporting and other events. The new clause provides that any provision in a contract is void in so far as it prevents the use of visual images from another programme for the purposes of news reporting, in circumstances in which the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 would apply. Any decisions as to what constitutes fair dealing would remain for the courts to take, based on the specific circumstances of the case in question.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 30

COPYRIGHT LICENSING

'.—(1) After section 135G of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 there is inserted—
"Power to amend sections 135A to 135G

135H.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order, subject to such transitional provision as appears to him to be appropriate. amend sections 135A to 135G so as—

(a) to include in any reference to sound recordings any works of a description specified in the order; or
(b) to exclude from any reference to a broadcast or cable programme service any broadcast or cable programme service of a description so specified.

(2) An order shall be made by statutory instrument; and no order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."

(2) After section 151 of that Act there is inserted—
"Award of interest

151A.—(1) Any of the following, namely—

(a) a direction under section 123(3) so far as relating to a licence for broadcasting a work or including a work in a cable programme service;
(b) a direction under section 128(3) so far as so relating;
(c) an order under section 135D(1); and
(d) an order under section 135F confirming or varying an order under section 135D(1),

may award simple interest at such rate and for such period, beginning not earlier than the relevant date and ending not later than the date of the order, as the Copyright Tribunal thinks reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) In this section "the relevant date" means—

(a) in relation to a direction under section 123(3), the date on which the reference was made;
(b) in relation to a direction under section 128(3), the date on which the reference or application was made;
(c) in relation to an order section 135D(1), the date on which the first payment under section 135C(2) became due; and
(b) in relation to an order under section I35F, the date on which the application was made."

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply in any case where the reference or application to the Copyright Tribunal was or is made before the commencement of this section.'—[Mr. Ian Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause gives effect to the commitment made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage, in Committee when possible changes to the scope of the statutory licence were discussed. He explained that the Government did not feel that it was appropriate to go ahead with any changes at present, but the new clause will allow an order to be made in future to vary the application of the statutory licence. That will include restricting the categories of broadcast or cable programme service to which the statutory licence applies. The Government have in mind in particular the possible removal of on-demand services from the statutory licence.
The new clause will also give the copyright tribunal the discretion to add an element of interest to awards that it makes when resolving disputes, for example, under the statutory licence. This will include a back-dated payment or repayment to compensate any party financially disadvantaged by the unreasonable behaviour of another. Because of the scope of the Bill, the new clause has been limited to cases involving broadcasting and cable programmes, but when a suitable legislative opportunity arises the Government intend to apply the change to all disputes that can be heard by the tribunal.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: I welcome the new clause on behalf of the Opposition. It has been tabled in response to an amendment tabled by Opposition Members in Committee and it will allow the Government to respond flexibly and sensibly to perceived difficulties in the music industry, in particular, as a result of the development of new on-demand services. We welcome this response to changing technology and we hope that the Government will look at suggestions made by the music industry to deal with what it believes are considerable difficulties in


the present arrangements as a result of technological changes. We are grateful to the Minister for tabling the new clause and we shall support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 34

AMENDMENTS OF COPYRIGHT, DESIGNS AND PATENTS ACT 1988 RELATING TO CABLE PROGRAMME SERVICES

'Schedule (Amendments of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 relating to cable programme services) (which contains amendments of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 relating to broadcasts included in cable programme services) shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Ian Taylor.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government new schedule 4—Amendments of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 relating to cable programme services.

Mr. Taylor: The new clause and new schedule are immensely complicated, but the purposes are relatively straightforward and simple. They adjust the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to take account of the introduction of the new must-carry requirements for cable operators under clause 86. As many hon. Members will know, the must-carry amendments were introduced following debates in the Lords in which Baroness O'Cathain played a leading and most constructive role, and I give her due credit.
Clearly, cable operators should not be liable for copyright infringement merely by fulfilling their obligations under clause 86 to carry public service broadcasts. The new clause and new schedule ensure that that is the case, while also providing for copyright owners to obtain additional payments from broadcasters where a broadcast is carried by cable outside the area for which it is made.
Cable operators not subject to the must-carry requirement will also be able to carry all the public service broadcasts within the area covered by the broadcast without infringing the copyright. The new clause also includes an order-making power to change the list of broadcasts to which this copyright exemption applies if, for example, any free-to-air digital services were to achieve a high level of penetration.
5.45 pm
Where other broadcasts are to be carried, the cable operators will need to obtain copyright clearance from the broadcaster but, as is the case at present, there will be no copyright infringement in underlying works. Broadcasters will have already paid a royalty to rights owners for the area covered by the broadcast. An additional royalty for cable coverage of the same area would therefore amount to a double payment.
We expect and hope, however, that in future there will be many new broadcasts as a result of digital technology. The new clause therefore includes an order-making power

allowing the Government to limit the exemption from copyright infringement should there be evidence that copyright owners are not getting their due as a result of these developments.

Mr. Hoon: The Opposition have no substantial objection to the new clause. However, in response to the Minister's comment about the complexity of the proposals, I make the observation that it is somewhat unfortunate at this late stage in the passage of the Bill—which has completed its stages in the other place and has gone through a long and detailed Committee stage in this House—for us to be presented with complex amendments which have not been considered in detail in Committee. That is regrettable.
I wonder whether the presence of a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry at this late stage indicates that there has been further thinking in different Government Departments about the way in which the Bill has developed. Such thinking might have been done better in co-ordination with the Department of National Heritage. It would have helped everyone to see that co-operation rather earlier in the proceedings so that we could have responded to the proposals in Committee.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Government, as we know, is a seamless web. However, when a complex piece of legislation goes through we sometimes need to table new clauses, amendments and new schedules. I apologise to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) for leaving the new clause until late in the day, but I think that he will agree that it is better late than never.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 41

STANDARDS FOR TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS

'(1) The Independent Television Commission (in this section referred to as "the Commission") shall do all that they can to secure that every licensed service uses a transmission system complying with Article 2 of Council Directive 95/47/EC on the use of standards for the transmission of television signals ("the Directive").
(2) In this section "Community digital standard" means any of the alternatives permitted within the mandatory parts of the standards to be met by a transmission system for the purpose of complying with Article 2(c) of the Directive (which relates to television services that are fully digital).
(3) The Commission may, after consultation with the persons specified in subsection (6), specify particular Community digital standards to be met in the provision of licensed services which are fully digital.
(4) In deciding whether, and if so how, to exercise their powers under subsection (3), the Commission shall, in particular—

(a) have regard to the desirability of promoting—

(i) mutual technical compatibility between digital television services, and
(ii) the development of digital television broadcasting, and
(b) consider whether it would be reasonably practicable for persons providing licensed services which are fully digital to use transmission systems meeting the Community digital standards in question.

(5) Where the Commission have exercised their powers under subsection (3), they shall—

(a) publish notice of their determination in such manner as they think fit, and


(b) do all that they can to secure that any licensed service which is fully digital uses a transmission system meeting the Community digital standards specified under that subsection.

(6) The persons referred to in subsection (3) are—

(a) every person providing a licensed service,
(b) the BBC,
(c) the Welsh Authority,
(d) the Secretary of State,
(e) the Director General of Telecommunications,
(f) the Director General of Fair Trading,
(g) such persons appearing to them to represent manufacturers of television broadcasting or receiving equipment as they think fit,
(h) such persons appearing to them to represent viewers as they think fit, and
(j) such other persons as they think fit.

(7) In this section—
licensed service" means any service licensed by the Commission under Part I of this Act or Part I or II of the 1990 Act or provided under a relevant cable licence, but does not include any service which is only broadcast or transmitted for reception outside the European Economic Area;
relevant cable licence" means a relevant licence within the meaning of Part III of Schedule 12 to the 1990 Act (transitional provisions relating to existing cable services).'—[Mr. Ian Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 16—Common technical standards for digital television—
'.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for additional powers for the Independent Television Commission ("the Commission") to adopt technical licensing requirements for digital television services as he may consider appropriate for the purpose of ensuring the greatest practicable mutual technical compatibility of those services.
(2) Before making an order under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) every person who is the holder of a licence to provide a digital television service;
(b) every independent analogue broadcaster as defined in section 2(1) of this Act providing a qualifying service as defined in section 2(2) of this Act;
(c) such other providers and potential providers of digital television services as he thinks fit;
(d) such bodies or persons appearing to him to represent manufacturers and producers of equipment used for receiving digital television services as he thinks fit;
(e) such other bodies or persons who are concerned with technical licensing requirements for digital television services as he thinks fit.
(3) An order under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.

New clause 43—Power of Commission to adopt technical licensing requirements for digital television services—
`.—(1) After section 2 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
2A. (1) The Commission may adopt such technical licensing requirements for digital television services as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of ensuring the greatest practicable mutual technical compatibility of those services.
(2) Before the Commission adopt any such licensing requirements as are referred to in subsection (1), they shall consult—

(a) every person who is the holder of a licence to provide a digital television service;
(b) every independent analogue broadcaster as defined in section 2(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1996 providing a qualifying service as defined in section 2(2) of that Act;
(c) such other providers and potential providers of digital television services as the Commission think fit;
(d) such bodies or persons appearing to the Commission to represent manufacturers and producers of equipment used for receiving digital television services as the Commission think fit;
(e) such other bodies or persons who are concerned with technical licensing requirements for digital television services as the Commission think fit.
(3) Each of the following is a digital television service for the purposes of this Part and of Part I of the Broadcasting Act 1996—

(a) A multiplex service, as defined in section 1 of the Broadcasting Act 1996;
(b) A digital programme service, as defined in section 1(4) of that Act;
(c) A qualifying service, as defined in section 2(2) of that Act;
(d) A digital additional service, as defined in section 21(1) of that Act;
(e) An ancillary service, as defined in section 21(2) of that Act;
(f) An electronic programme guide service, that is to say the service of providing, whether in conjunction with a television programme service or otherwise and whether directly or indirectly, television programme information by broadcasting, transmitting or otherwise conveying that information (whether by wireless telegraphy, by means of a telecommunications system or otherwise) to equipment which is capable of receiving and/or processing the information, where that service is provided in digital form;
(g) A domestic satellite service transmitted in digital form;
(h) A non-domestic satellite service transmitted in digital form;
(i) A licensable programme service provided in digital form;
(j) A local delivery service, as defined in section 72, where that service or any of the programmes comprised in it is delivered in digital form;
(k) A diffusion service (within the meaning of Part I of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984), whether prescribed or otherwise, which falls to be regulated by the Commission under section 134 of, and Schedule 12 to, this Act and which is provided in digital form.'.".

New clause 44—Amendment of section 6(1) of 1990 Act (Technical licensing requirements)—
`After subsection (1)(e) of section 6 of the 1990 Act (general requirements as to licensed services) there is inserted—
(f) where the licensed service is a digital television service, that it complies with any licensing requirements adopted by the Commission under section 2A.".'.

New clause 45—Amendment of section 73(3) of 1990 Act (Licensing of local delivery services)—
(1) Section 73 of the 1990 Act is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (3) there is substituted—
(3) Subject to subsection (4), sections 3, 4, 5 and 6(I)(f) shall apply to local delivery licences as they apply to licences granted by the Commission under Part I of this Act.
(3) After subsection 4(c) there is inserted—
(d) the reference in section 6(1)(0 to 'every licensed service' shall be construed as including a reference to licensed local delivery services.".'.

New clause 46—Amendment of Schedule 12 to 1990 Act (Cable services)—
'After paragraph 2(1) of Part III of Schedule 12 to the 1990 Act there is inserted—
(1A) In discharging their functions under this Schedule as respects the licensing of diffusion services, the Commission shall do all that they can to secure that any diffusion services which are provided in digital form comply with any licensing requirements adopted by the Commission under section 2A of this Act; and a relevant licence may include such conditions as appear to the Commission to be appropriate for securing that the diffusion services authorised to be provided under that licence comply with any such licensing requirements.".'.

Amendment No. 228, in clause 7, page 8, line 3, leave out 'the service' and insert
'all the multiplex services available in that area'.

Amendment No. 229, in clause 8, page 9, line 8, leave out 'the service' and insert
'all the multiplex services available in that area'.

Amendment No. 256, in clause 11, page 11, line 41, at end insert—
'(i) that the licensed service complies with any licensing requirements adopted by the Commission under section 2A of the 1990 Act (power of Commission to adopt technical licensing requirements for digital television services)'.

Amendment No. 257, in clause 18, page 19, line 15, at end insert—
'(4A) Without prejudice to the generality of section 4(1) (general licence conditions), it is hereby declared that a digital programme licence may also include such conditions as appear to the Commission to be appropriate for securing that any ancillary service provided by the licence holder complies with any conditions adopted by the Commission under section 2A of the 1990 Act (power of Commission to adopt technical licensing requirements for digital television services).
(4B) In subsection 4A, "ancillary service" has the meaning given by section 21(2) of this Act.'.

Amendment No. 258, in clause 26, page 25, line 27, at end insert—
'(c) ensuring that qualifying services, and any ancillary services provided by independent analogue broadcasters, comply with any licensing requirements adopted by the Commission under section 2A of the 1990 Act (power of Commission to adopt technical licensing requirements for digital television services)'.

Amendment No. 259, in page 26, line 11, leave out 'either' and insert 'any'.

Government amendment No. 253.

Mr. Taylor: We are dealing here with a large group of new clauses and amendments. I shall speak briefly to new clause 41 and the consequential Government amendment No. 253, and pause to see what comments emerge.
The Government have taken careful note of the debate in Committee on common technical standards for digital television. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) played a key role in raising these questions in Committee, helping us to pin down the crucial issues at the heart of the matter. I give him credit for his contribution to the debate. The hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) also made leading and constructive contributions.
As hon. Members will know, the Government responded to the debate by undertaking a consultation exercise on the possibilities for co-operation between digital terrestrial multiplex providers to ensure that all digital terrestrial decoders could receive all digital terrestrial services. As both Government and Opposition amendments show, the issue crosses the different transmission media. Interoperability between services on any given medium is clearly desirable for digital terrestrial, cable and satellite, but so too is interoperability between services on different media in so far as that is reasonably practicable.
We can all find common cause in the aim of supporting interoperability. The Government believe that the commercial imperatives of a market in which the objective is to sell services to the largest possible number of subscribers will tend to support, rather than work against, interoperability. We should not ignore the potential for the market to find its own solutions, as has occurred in other areas covered by my responsibility as Minister for Science and Technology.
There is a desire for interoperability to enable the services to reach the widest possible market. To do so by providing powers to pick particular standards across the board, for example, would create unnecessary uncertainty, retarding development and raising costs. Neither of those effects is in the interests of the consumer, so we have endeavoured to strike the necessary balance. With that in mind, ensuring basic interconnection between services comes down principally to two issues: first, ensuring interoperability between different conditional access systems and, secondly, ensuring that the maximum compatibility that is reasonably practicable between transmission systems is achieved.
First, on conditional access, hon. Members will know that, on 26 June, we published for further consultation detailed proposals on the regulation of conditional access services for all modes of digital television. Those draft regulations and the associated draft licence for conditional access services will ensure that any broadcaster may obtain conditional access service from every operator. That means that he can include in his broadcast signal the control information for each system.
Each decoder can unscramble the picture under the control information appropriate to its conditional access system. That is known as simul-crypt, which I understand we will discuss later. It will work in practice because our regulations, following the European directive, will require every decoder to contain the so-called common scrambling alorithm. All that is necessary is to have the conditional access service data for each particular system to control its operation in unscrambling the picture. That is guaranteed by our regulations, which will oblige every conditional access operator to supply service to any broadcaster who requests it.
The second main objective is to ensure the maximum practicable compatibility in transmission standards. The European directive already mandates particular transmission standards for each mode of digital delivery. Each standard contains a number of mandatory sections. Within those sections, however, a number of choices can be made for some required transmission parameters. That will allow broadcasters to adopt the best set of parameters for coping with the particular environment in different countries, for example, and provides important flexibility behind the different standards.
Most manufacturers are likely to incorporate substantially the full range of options in their broadcast and receiving equipment, but if different equipment manufacturers in the United Kingdom chose to manufacturer different limited selections of those options—perhaps because they were the options favoured by particular broadcasters or multiplex providers—technical incompatibilities could result. New clause 41, therefore, provides a reserve power for the ITC, following consultation with all relevant players, to select a particular set of options from those allowed by each transmission standard. All broadcast service licence holders would then be required to observe those choices in transmission.
Taken with our regulations for implementing conditional access regulation, I hope that it is clear that new clause 41 does precisely what we are seeking: it provides a means to ensure the greatest practicable mutual technical compatibility of digital television services across all three delivery mechanisms—terrestrial, satellite and cable.
New clause 41 also fulfils the Government's obligation to implement the rest of the provisions in article 2 of the television standards directive.
Amendment No. 253 provides simply that the definitions in the Broadcasting Act 1990 apply to new clause 41.
Our amendments achieve their aims without creating great uncertainty as to what standards might be specified. They also avoid certain of the undesirable side effects of some of the other new clauses and amendments in this group. Nevertheless, before I pause to allow other hon. Members to speak, it may be of interest to Opposition Members to know that the Government are minded to accept one further aspect of those amendments.

Mr. Hoon: I shall not delay the House by repeating the Minister's observations, as they reflect those of Opposition Members in moving various amendments designed to achieve the purpose that the Government are now so keen to advocate. It is appropriate, however, to repeat my earlier mild criticisms of the Government—and perhaps the Minister's Department—that the amendments were not tabled much earlier. I am afraid that it is an example of government by amendment.
I am pleased that the Government have shifted their position, gradually, in the direction of common sense. New clause 41 in particular reflects the views of the Committee. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee were anxious that a common standard should be established.
The Minister referred to our deliberations in Committee. I hope that he also noted a number of plaintive cries for his attendance so that he could put the

view of the Department of Trade of Industry as that would have assisted us all. It is for further consideration—perhaps by a different Government—if these matters require amendment in future, that there should be greater co-ordination between Government Departments to achieve what is finally a commonsense approach to the problem.

Mr. Gale: I concur entirely. I am sure that, if further amendments are necessary, the next Conservative Government will be only too pleased to address them.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology to the Dispatch Box and thank him for his kind opening remarks. As he is aware, having studied reports of the proceedings in Committee, concern has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the core argument on the development of digital terrestrial and satellite broadcasting relates to conditional access and the technology involved.
What my hon. Friend has told the House this afternoon is extremely welcome. Last week, the Government published a draft statutory instrument on conditional access. That will go a long way towards meeting many of the concerns about a common interface. If the viewing public are to have the confidence necessary to invest in initially expensive new digital receivers, it is vital that they should have access to all the programmes on offer. They will not be content with a selection achieved through one box, and then having to purchase a second, third or fourth decoder to receive all programmes.
Set manufacturers must be confident that they are producing equipment that will not be obsolete within a few months or a few years if they are to invest in the production lines necessary to turn out the new receivers. I hope that, as a result of what has been said today, set manufacturers and the public will proceed with confidence and that there will be a new range of wide-screen digital television receivers—with a set-in box, not a set-top box—capable of receiving all the channels whether by satellite, terrestrial or cable television.
As my hon. Friend said, new clause 41 would give reserve powers to the Independent Television Commission. It is similar to the amendment that I tabled in Committee and which was lost on the Chairman's casting vote. Although new clause 41 gives the ITC some discretion to choose between sub-sets of agreed European standards, it does so only within the terms of article 2c of the television standards directive.
I am assured that article 2c refers only to the most basic elements of the digital transmission system. It does not cover any of the ancillary elements such as service information, which is not the television picture or sound, but information about the service; it does not cover conditional access, but the statutory instrument will; and it does not cover electronic programme guides, which were discussed in Committee. All those elements are essential both for the digital transmission itself and for compatibility between them. There will be an opportunity through the statutory instrument to address those missing elements if my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology is so minded, and I would be grateful if he would comment on that.
I am extremely grateful for the manner in which both responsible Departments have responded to the arguments that were put forward in Committee. The amendments


will go a very long way towards meeting our concerns. Will my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology give an undertaking that the statutory instrument relating to conditional access will be on the statute book and operative in time to run in tandem with the Bill's enactment, so that all those concerned can have absolute confidence in the manner in which they are to proceed?

6 pm

Mr. Maclennan: I welcome the Minister's speech, and only in passing regret that the Government's intentions in this very complex area became clear rather late when they tabled their amendments on Thursday.
The complexity of the issue, both in terms of the technology and the legal language that we are deploying in the amendments, would probably be baffling to most auditors of this debate. I think that we all agree—I do not believe that there is any division across the Floor of the House on the issue—that we are trying to guarantee the ability of audiences to choose to receive either digital terrestrial or digital satellite services, or both, without disposing of equipment that they have already acquired. It is recognised that that is vital to the take-up of the new digital service. I take it that that is what inspires the Minister's amendments, although they are also clearly designed to bring the Bill into line with the terms of article 2c of the European Union television standards directive.
I tabled new clauses 43 to 46 because it has been put to me—and, I imagine, to other hon. Members—that the implementation of article 2c does not go quite far enough in removing uncertainties. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) described well the defects of reliance on article 2c provisions that seem to be encompassed by new clause 41, and I endorse what he said. The provisions are of course flexible and, since we are in a fast-moving market, perhaps it would be wrong at this stage to specify a complete set of transmission elements where the ITC could play a role. Service information, for example, which is not covered by the directive, is information on where particular services may be found. It is important that compatible standards are made mandatory if receivers are to be able to locate channels and switch between them.
New clause 16, which the Labour party tabled, seems to cover similar ground, by appearing to lay a similar duty on the ITC. I am sure that it has a similar goal in mind, but I am concerned that the new clause would introduce delay into the process by simply providing, after extensive consultation, for the Secretary of State to lay an order giving the ITC powers—a somewhat slow procedure bearing in mind how rapidly it might be possible for a powerful player to come to dominate the market.
The ITC has indicated that it would consult widely and fully if it were exercising discretion in this area, and try to reach a satisfactory position by industry consensus. I do not think that, in this matter, we can simply allow the market to operate. It could take a long time to find a common standard, or one could be imposed on the industry. I therefore commend to the Minister new clauses 43 to 46, which would give the ITC the discretion that I think it requires. That is the right approach to create conditions in which a proper inter-connect regime can emerge.
I found the Minister's speech somewhat tantalising in that he held out the hope that some of the amendments, which have been tabled by hon. Members of all parties,

might conceivably be acceded to. I therefore hesitate to labour my points lest, by some chance, I might be the fortunate person whom he intends to favour.

Mr. Ian Taylor: We have had a useful and clarifying debate. I suppose that I am touched by the words of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). One's absence is felt in these matters but, as I said, my hon. Friend the Minister for National Heritage did a tremendous job in Committee. My hon. Friend and I kept in very close touch and I would not want the hon. Gentleman to think that I had no interest in the Committee's proceedings. There is a close working relationship between the Departments of Trade and Industry and of National Heritage. My responsibilities as Minister for Science and Technology include the economic supply chain, copyright issues and many of the other basic technical standards that underpin the Department of National Heritage's broadcasting policy, and this is one of the areas in which such matters are particularly important.
Conditional access and interoperability are crucial to our ability to move forward in this very exciting digital television revolution. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet: we must ensure that customers know where they stand and that they do not have to buy many boxes. He is absolutely right that, before we get very far down this track, the new sets will have built in decoders rather than set-top boxes. We are possibly talking about the change of 8 million television sets—that is a slightly back-of-an-envelope calculation—which is a considerable challenge. Indeed, we have set down a timetable for a review of when we might ultimately consider switching off analogue. I would like that to be capable of happening, and for us to give guidance, as soon as possible.
I should like, if I may, to cross-reference this issue with the White Paper that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade issued on radio spectrum pricing only 10 days ago. It contains a very useful section on radio spectrum pricing in relation to the broadcasting industry, which is not the subject of these amendments but to which I should nevertheless like to draw attention because I believe that it is relevant to the background to the debate. Set manufacturers must also be given clarity.
As always, there is a need for a concept of commercial return in order to stimulate investment. We must not stipulate to the point that we ignore the innovative process, nor must we draw the power so widely that the people who are investing consider the risk too big and. therefore, delay their activities until the Government of the day clarify their intentions.
In my judgment and that of my colleagues, new clauses 43 to 46 would give the ITC powers to do virtually anything in connection with digital television services. Far from creating the certainty that we require, they would be likely to provoke uncertainty. Were the power to be applied to technical standards in decoders, the need for clearance would arise under the single market procedures of directive 83/189/EC, and that would inevitably create further uncertainty and delay. We cannot accept those new clauses, or new clause 16, which offers similar scope. We believe that it, too, would be a recipe for delay and increased costs.
I accept that not every element can be covered in the statutory instrument. Basic standards on service information are included, although not the full


specification. The statutory instrument cannot implement more than is in the directive, but it will be laid in the autumn. In the document published on 26 June, we laid down a timetable to which I intend to adhere. We are having consultations until the end of this month, and we will move swiftly thereafter.
Finally, we come to amendments Nos. 228 and 229, tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and others. It is important to be charitable, and I must say that the amendments are ingenious and we like them. They seem to offer a response to some of the potential competition law difficulties identified with proposals explicitly requiring collusion between bidders for multiplex licences. Co-operation is still possible, and may be desirable. It should be clear that, under these amendments, the ITC would not be able to preclude bids that did not involve co-operation between multiplex providers. Equipment using different conditional access systems from that of other multiplex operators is still capable of receiving all the multiplex services through the application of simul-crypt, as I explained earlier.
Furthermore, new clause 41 and its associated amendment, amendment No. 253, provide a back-stop power for the ITC to help to ensure the greatest mutual technical compatibility that is reasonably practicable between digital services. Amendments Nos. 228 and 229 seem to us to add value to this objective in the specific context of digital terrestrial television. They make clear that, all other things being equal, proposals that added to interoperability without raising immediate problems of competition law would be favoured over ones that detracted from interoperability. The Government are therefore minded to agree to these amendments but, for the reasons that I have explained, we will resist the other amendments—and the new clauses—in the group.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill

New clause 4

DUTY OF INDEPENDENT TELEVISION COMMISSION AND RADIO AUTHORITY TO PROMOTE QUALITY IN PROGRAMMES

'.—(1) In exercising their powers under this Act and the 1990 Act, the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority ("the relevant authorities") shall have as their principal objective to secure that programmes included in any service licensed under either Act shall, taking the relevant service as a whole—
(a) be of a consistently high quality; and
(b) contain a suitable proportion of original material produced, or predominantly produced, in the United Kingdom.

(2) "Suitable proportion" in subsection (1) above shall have the meaning assigned to it in guidance which shall be issued by the relevant authorities.'.—[Mr. Mullin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 35—Duty of Commission and authorities to promote quality etc., in television and radio services in Wales—
'.—It shall be the principal duty of the Independent Television Commission, the Welsh Authority and the Radio Authority, in exercising their powers under this Act and the 1990 Act, to secure that the programmes included in any service intended for reception in Wales are of a consistently high quality and that they reflect, taking the relevant service as a whole—

(a) the tastes and interests of all communities living in Wales; and
(b) the cultural and linguistic heritage of Wales.'.

Government amendments Nos. 11 to 13.

Mr. Mullin: May I begin by thanking my hon. Friends for the backing that they have given to this new clause? It is not every day that my name appears on the amendment paper above that of the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not suppose that will happen often in the future. I am grateful none the less.
New clause 4 seeks to repair one of the fundamental omissions from this Bill—the absence of any requirement that programme quality be taken into account when licences are allocated. It seeks to do this in two ways. First, it will enable the ITC to take into account the quality of the service proposed by the applicant. As the Bill stands, the nearest we get to laying down minimum standards is the requirement in clause 8(2)(d) that the service shall appeal to
a variety of tastes and interests".
That, as I shall argue in a moment, is wholly inadequate.
Secondly, the new clause will ensure that the material broadcast shall contain a suitable proportion of original British-made programmes. I say "original" because I would not want the purpose of the new clause to be subverted by the endless recycling of second-hand material, whether produced in Britain or anywhere else. As to what constitutes a "suitable" proportion, that would be for the ITC to judge, taking into account all the circumstances—including the fact that, initially, it might be necessary to exercise leniency until the new service was up and running.
In due course, I see no reason why the proportion of British-made programmes on digital television should not be similar to that expected of terrestrial television. It is important to make clear from the outset to the providers of digital television that we do not wish to be swamped by a tidal wave of American junk. Nor do we wish to see our television production industry go the same way as our film industry. We have an excellent domestic television industry and, in particular, we have a thriving independent sector. We do not want to see it undermined—we want it to be encouraged.
6.15 pm
It will not have escaped the notice of those who advise Ministers that the application of new clause 4 is considerably wider than any amendment moved in Committee. It provides the ITC with powers to enforce minimum standards not merely upon applicants for multiplex licences, but on applicants who come within the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1990. As clause 45 of the 1990 Act makes clear, this includes non-domestic satellite television—in other words, Sky Television.
For reasons at which one can only guess, Sky has been exempt from the requirement imposed on terrestrial commercial television that a given percentage of its output must be British-made and original. Sky spends almost nothing on original production apart from news and sport, with the result that it is free to import—often from other parts of the Murdoch empire—American and Australian movies and soaps at a fraction of the costs that its terrestrial rivals have to spend on producing original material. It is hard to think of anything more calculated to undermine the quality of British television.
I am sure that Sky's exemption from the rules that apply to its commercial rivals has been a factor in the desperate spiral of cost-cutting and ratings chasing that has afflicted British television in the past six years. I do not know how this extraordinary arrangement came about. It has been suggested that Margaret Thatcher sent a draft of the 1990 Act to Mr. Murdoch's lawyers, who simply deleted the parts that they did not like. That is one possibility. Another justification was that Sky's start-up costs were so massive and the risk so great that it would have been unreasonable to expect it to meet the same standards as its commercial rivals. I am not sure whether that argument ever held water, but if it did, it has long since been overtaken by events. Sky is now seven years old, and is highly profitable. It is about time that it was required to operate on a level playing field. New clause 4 will provide the regulators with powers to make sure that it does.
I now return to the argument about quality. I read the Minister's speech on this issue in Committee and, frankly, I was confused by it. On the one hand, he appeared to argue that the Bill already provided the regulator with powers to insist on minimum standards of programming. On the other hand, he argued that any safeguards would place an unreasonable burden upon investors. He cannot have it both ways. As regards his suggestion that variety was an adequate substitute for quality, that was admirably disposed of by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who said that the Oxford English dictionary defined variety as "the absence of monotony". Is that the best that we can hope for from this wonderful new technology? Should we not be a little more ambitious?
The Minister argued that we must allow multiplex providers to give viewers what they want—the very argument that has given us The Sun and has dragged the rest of our tabloid newspapers into the gutter to compete. I do not want to see the same thing happening to our television. None of us should pretend that we know what the viewers want, but of one thing I am certain—unless we insist upon the enforcement of minimum standards from the outset, the viewers will get what is cheapest and most profitable for directors and shareholders. When challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) in Committee to say how we could prevent a decision by one operator to go down market from dragging others down with it, the Minister said that there was "every reason to hope" that the quality of channels 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 would be imported into the new digital services. He continued:
We shall have to wait and see."—[Official Report, Standing Committer D. 25 April 1996; c. 64.]
For my part, I am not prepared to wait and see, or to rely on hope. All the evidence from at home and abroad suggests that once one surrenders decisions about quality

entirely to the market, the trend is remorselessly downhill. As for the quality of channels 1, 2, 3 and 4—we are still awaiting channel 5—which the Minister hopes will be imparted to the digital services, there has been a dramatic decline in quality since the wave of mergers triggered by the 1990 Act. The knowledge that the first two digital multiplexes will go to the holders of existing franchises gives me no confidence.
The only way to guarantee minimum standards is to provide the regulator with power to enforce them. That is what I am proposing. In Committee, the Minister said that the dominant criterion by which the ITC will judge applicants is
the degree to which the application … is likely to advance the cause of digitalisation in this country."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 April 1996; c. 66.]
Never mind the quality, feel the width—that is precisely the philosophy that will lead us down the road to ruin. In the long term, it will not be the standards of terrestrial channels that set the pace for digital television, but the opposite. Digital could undermine the standards that we are struggling to maintain on the other channels. We will end up with a tabloid TV—50 or 500 channels, but nothing worth watching on any of them.
If the Government are not willing to take into account the Opposition's fears or those of many in the industry, for example those associated with the Campaign for Quality Television, one might expect them to listen to the ITC, which was set up precisely to regulate the industry. I presume that the ITC—or, I would presume it if the Minister were anywhere to be seen—enjoys the confidence of Ministers. It would be a strange affair if it did not. What does the ITC have to say on the issue? I will quote from a briefing that has no doubt been circulated for the Report stage to all hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee, which states:
Despite widespread agreement concerning the need to empower the ITC to take these matters into consideration when analysing applications for multiplex service licences, it is by no means certain that the ITC will have sufficient statutory powers to exercise discretion in these areas. If this uncertainty remains, the ITC believes the legislation could actively prohibit"—
that is underlined—
consideration of these factors in the licensing process.
At the end of the debate in Committee, the Minister undertook to go away and reflect on the quality of what he called "the backstops". I gather that amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 are the product of his reflections. If that is so, I can say only that they are obscure. Their purpose may be clear to the fine legal minds who advise Ministers, but they are not clear to me or to the people whom I have consulted.
At the end of last week, I asked the ITC whether the amendments had resolved the problem from its point of view. I was told that they would make no significant difference. If the Government are committed to maintaining the quality of British television, as they claim, why cannot they say so unambiguously in the Bill? That is the purpose of new clause 4 and I commend it to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: First, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on the new clause and his speech in introducing it. I enjoyed the sight of his name alongside that of our right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and mine on the amendment paper—long may it continue.
New clause 4 encapsulates all the important arguments that took place in the Committee in this House and in another place and on Second Reading. Consistently, we have heard from Ministers that the provisions of schedule 7 to the Bill would allow a carry-over of the powers and duties of the Independent Television Commission from the 1990 Act. Those duties under section 2 require the Commission to discharge its functions
in the manner which they consider is best calculated to ensure the provision of such services which (taken as a whole) are of high quality and offer a wide range of programmes calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests.
At the end of the Committee stage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South made clear, the ITC was still not convinced that it had been given the necessary powers. The Minister said:
the lawyers still cannot make up their minds about the exact wording."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 June 1996; c. 765.]
He promised to write to all members of the Committee setting out the exact situation. That he has done. In the past few days, he has begun to catch up on his correspondence. We have had a series of letters from him about matters contained in the Bill. I shall quote the letter from the Minister of State, who said:
I am sorry that in expounding this case I inadvertently misled the Committee on the relatively technical question of the application of Section 2 of the 1990 Act".
It is not surprising that the hon. Gentleman inadvertently misled the Committee and, of course, we accept his apology. That is not the problem and it is not surprising because he was trying to reconcile two almost exactly opposite points of view. On the one hand, in the letter, he was saying,
It remains the Government's view that quality should not be a distinct criterion in the award of multiplex licences.
That is the Minister's and the Government's view. However, he then went on to say:
There are, however, two particular respects in which, in our view, the ITC will be able to take account of quality considerations".
The Government say that they do not want quality to be a specific consideration, but they want nevertheless to take into account quality issues. That is contradictory and the Government had every opportunity to make their mind up on the matter and to clarify the situation.
The reality is that the body that will have to implement this part of the Act—the ITC—remains unconvinced that the amendments in the name of the Secretary of State today are sufficient to give it the clarity and certainty that it requires. The ITC believes that any exercise of those powers to decide between digital programme service providers could, as the proposals stand, leave the ITC open to legal challenge, which would obviously be highly unsatisfactory.
The reality is also that quality of programming and quality controls in television exercise people in all parties and also exercise the public a great deal. Although the amendments about the V-chip are grouped separately, there is a link between what we are discussing, the new clause and the subsequent amendments—how the statutory bodies of government and we as legislators protect people from gratuitous violence and other unsatisfactory and unacceptable productions on television.
New clause 4 seems to be the right way to proceed—by allowing an explicit reference to the power to consider quality when judging programme services. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South has been able to be quite clear about that in the new clause. The Government have deliberately chosen not to select that as a criterion and have obfuscated the issue, as the Minister's letter makes clear.
The new clause also gives the regulators powers to consider issues relating to original material and United Kingdom-based productions, which are particularly important to our audio-visual industries. It also extends to radio, an area that the Government have completely ignored. That alone renders their amendments unsatisfactory.
I urge the House to support new clause 4.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin): we see eye to eye on many issues. However, if he had used the word "channels" rather than the phrase
programmes included in any service",
the wording would have been much more specific, and it might not have been so easy for the authorities to wriggle out of it. With all respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), that is far too easy under the current drafting.
Anyone who has BSkyB, or watches it regularly, will know that its channels conform to everything in the new clause. TNT, for instance, shows old films predominantly—six or seven a day. Most are English, feature Jack Hawkins commanding a submarine and have been on television 15 times before, but they nevertheless fall within the criteria laid down in the new clause. Bravo shows films dating back to the 1950s; UK Gold features non-stop repeats of British programmes—yard after yard of "EastEnders" and "The Bill". Recently, it has shown all the Morecambe and Wise programmes, "The Two Ronnies", "Poldark", "Elizabeth R", "I, Claudius" and "Minder".
The whole nation enjoyed that marvellous television in the 1970s, and I very much enjoyed watching it for the second time. Often, when I leave the House at midnight—not feeling very tired—and there is nothing else on television, I watch a 1977 repeat of "Match of the Day". That is wonderful football. It is possible to watch recordings of historic sporting events, all of them British and original. All that stuff of which we are so proud is on satellite television—on BSkyB, for instance. The Discovery channel shows wonderful documentaries. Whether they feature jackboots marching into Poland, Adolf Hitler or the history of the Ford motor car, they are far better than anything that is produced now.
BSkyB would accept the new clause. The old British stuff that is shown on perhaps 10 of its channels far outweighs the new American stuff. I ask my hon. Friend to think carefully. His intentions in regard to quality and standards are admirable, but he must be more specific.

Mr. Dafis: I support the new clause, because I believe that we need guarantees on quality. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) pointed out, when


there is intense competition it is easy for standards to fall. In Committee, I gave an example of the kind of reduction in quality that we have seen since the 1990 Act, specifically in the case of documentaries on third world and environmental issues which are produced on commercial channels. In many instances, there has been a reduction of some 40 per cent. in such coverage. It is a worrying trend.
I take it that, in referring to "high quality" and
taking the relevant service as a whole",
the new clause encompasses such considerations. I could not regard a service as being of high quality unless it dealt, seriously and educationally, with the major issues of our time. Surely the issue of environmental sustainability and third world development is the big issue of our time. It is deeply depressing to see serious coverage of such matters diminishing. It is with that thought in mind that I shall vote for the new clause.
I am glad to note that new clause 35 deals with the same issue in a Welsh context. It also asks for a mechanism to allow consideration of Welsh broadcasting in its entirety, which we certainly need. Wales has three programme providers, which are in competition with each other but collaborating and co-operating at the same time. It is that second aspect that needs to be strengthened. Like others, I would like a proper, comprehensive study of the Welsh broadcasting scene to be conducted, examining ways in which it can be developed in the round.
The new clause refers to
programmes included in any service intended for reception in Wales".
I take it that that makes it possible for us to discuss the BBC, which is a crucial element in co-operation on the Welsh scene. The BBC should recognise its responsibility, especially in regard to the amount of central funding that it provides for Wales. Between 1992 and 1996, its income from licences increased by about 14.7 per cent. I believe that funds for the BBC in Wales have increased at a much lower rate—by about a third of that amount. That is not good enough. Funds for the BBC in Wales are crucial. The BBC supplies 10 hours a week for S4C, and I understand that it regards that as fulfilling its responsibility for Wales; but it is not satisfactory.
Let me say a little about the reorganisation of the BBC that is currently proposed, and the effect that it may have in Wales. One member of the BBC's board of governors was responsible for regional broadcasting; now, one member of the new BBC broadcasting unit will be responsible for regional and educational broadcasting and a number of other important services. There is a danger that the whole regional dimension will suffer, and Wales will certainly be included in that decline.
The new clause refers to
the cultural and linguistic heritage of Wales".
I know that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) will speak about the English language heritage of Wales in that context, and—if I may anticipate him—I agree entirely with what he will say. One of the big deficiencies in Welsh television provision is that that English-speaking culture, and the vitality of the English dialects that are spoken in Wales, are not reflected.
It often strikes me that journalists and announcers on BBC Wales and HTV speak not with any kind of Welsh accent, but in monotonous, boring received-pronunciation

English. Sometimes they aspire even higher, and go for cut-glass English. The result is often comical. I consider cut-glass English comical in any event, but when it is spoken by people who are obviously affecting it and have had elocution lessons in order to do so, it is grotesque.
Language is an important part of culture and diversity, and dialect is part of that. I would welcome the comprehensive look at the broadcasting scene that new clause 35 encourages.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) ought to be central to any Bill about broadcasting. The issue of quality should not have been debated so late in the proceedings on the Bill. I know that it was considered in Committee, but it should have been central to the original legislation, as it should have been central to the Broadcasting Act 1990, which caused such damage to the whole of British broadcasting.
Too many people—even people who work in broadcasting—see quality of programming as secondary to the delivery system. I do not mind whether programmes come by digital methods or, provided everyone has access to them, by cable, satellite or terrestrial means. What matters is the quality of the programme that comes by this miraculous medium. I worked in the industry for a while, but I did not understand how it worked. I was concerned about the quality of the picture that came out at the end. Quality should be central to our consideration and legislation.
The idea that profoundly divides the Conservatives and the Opposition is that quality programming can somehow happen by accident, or, as I suppose they would say, as a result of market forces. All the experience of the media in Britain is that that simply is not true. If I were to caricature the difference between the broadcast medium and the print medium—the newspapers—I would say that the broadcast medium has been subject to broad democratic control and regulation whereas the print medium has not. If I asked any neutral observer anywhere in the world whether British broadcasting or British newspapers had the highest reputation and the highest quality and which was to be admired and emulated. the answer would be broadcasting, not the print. There is a lesson there for us all to learn.
Any cursory reading of the history of the industry shows perfectly well that, if we want quality programming, we must find means of ensuring that it exists, as the new clause seeks to do in a modest way. I could think of several amendments to it. I shall describe briefly for the Government's benefit, if they will listen, even at this late stage, how quality programming can be achieved.
For a start, we need to provide for television skills in the industry. The multitude of skills that go towards making a television programme do not come out of thin air. They are created as a result of people working in the industry and being properly trained.
Where is the training coming from now? What is happening to all the people who now work for small production companies who previously worked for the BBC or ITV and received their training there? I do not knock the small production companies, but they are living off the skills of the past; off the skills of people who


received their training in the BBC and ITV. What does the Bill say about training in relation to quality programming? Nothing.
My next comment may seem old-fashioned to Conservative Members, but I make no apology for it. If we want quality programming, we must provide some security of employment and a career structure. People need to know that, if they try their best to make a decent programme one week and fail, there will be an opportunity to improve the following week and to learn from other people. There must be security in the industry.
6.45 pm
My hon. Friend's new clause implies, but does not spell out specifically, that centres of excellence are needed. He wants to include a requirement for British broadcasting. I strongly support that, but I would add to it. I know that he agrees with me. Such requirements would mean that regional centres of excellence would have to be established. It would not mean that everything would be made in central London.
I want regional centres of excellence, not only because I want employment in the regions, but because we lose the richness of the possibility of producing good-quality television programmes if we require most of the programme makers and producers to live and work in London.
I am not talking about regional programming in the patronising way that we so often hear from the Government Benches. Ministers say, "Oh well, they do their regional show at 6.30 and the regional news." I strongly support regional programming and news, but I want to see network programmes made in the regions by people in the regions with regional skills. That also contributes to quality programming.

Mr. Maxton: Does my hon. Friend agree that regional and national production by the BBC and the ITV companies is important not only in terms of broadcasting but in terms of the continuation of art and culture in the regions? Regional broadcasting centres provide stable employment for a large number of people who work in the theatre and other areas at the same time.

Mr. Grocott: I agree with my hon. Friend. So many of these industries are related to each other. People move from one to the other. If a television production centre is moved from a region, a great part of its—I do not want to sound too pompous—cultural and artistic capacity is also removed. We all know what has happened to regional centres of production. One of the staggering things about the Government's attitude to the Bill is that they seem to have learnt none of the lessons of the previous failed legislation. Any Government spokesman ought to start by apologising for the 1990 Act.
I can only speak about what has happened in Birmingham. At Central Television there were four thriving studios before all the machinations surrounding the 1990 Act. There was a range of programming—not only regional news. There were programmes for the network and everything else. That has all been diminished. Skilled people have left.
I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. If we are to get broadcasting back on the right track, we need to acknowledge that there must be a framework within which broadcasters operate which requires excellence and high standards. We need to stop bowing, as we constantly have under the Conservative Government, to the needs of advertisers and company mergers, and start listening a little more to the viewers and programme makers.
Some people may think that this is a trivial point, but I am afraid that I do not. One small example of the decline that has taken place as a result of the previous legislation is the ridiculous business of sponsorship of television programmes. Does it really add anything to the weather forecast that it is sponsored by PowerGen, "Bringing you electricity whatever the weather"? Does that improve the quality of the forecast? Does it add to the sum total of human understanding of the weather? Of course it does not.
That is an important example of the way in which the miraculous medium of television is not being used in the interests of quality programmes to enrich our lives, but is being subverted by the needs of accountants and advertisers. My hon. Friend's new clause goes some way to redressing the balance, and I strongly support it.

Mr. Rowlands: I wish to address my remarks to new clause 35, which the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) touched on. I make no apology for raising Welsh issues again, because one of the purposes of the Report stage of a Bill is to report to the House what changes the Committee has made to the Bill.
In the context of Welsh broadcasting, the Bill is radically different from that which entered Committee. It will transform the role of S4C in the digital age. Let me draw to the attention of the whole House exactly what those changes are.
First, there will be a major new role for S4C on multiplex 3. It will have a much larger role than was envisaged on Second Reading. Secondly, S4C will be freed to go into satellite, cable and radio in both the Welsh language and English. Thirdly, it will be expected to exploit its commercial potential on its new multiplex, with a new financial arrangement of a commercial character. Fourthly, it will have new opportunities to expand its language service, as Channel 4 in the digital age will be removed from the S4C programmes and become a service all of its own.

Mr. Allan Rogers: My hon. Friend has touched on the financial arrangements and restructuring of S4C, but has he looked at the accountability of S4C, which receives a huge public subvention for programmes but is accountable to no one?

Mr. Rowlands: I should declare an interest when referring to S4C, because my wife is a member of the S4C authority, so I am accountable, if no one else is.
I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that the commercial and funding arrangements governing the new functions of S4C will be kept separate from its existing functions. No public funds from S4C can be used for its commercial developments.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Is not the answer to the question of the hon. Member for Rhondda that the S4C authority has to lay an annual report before the House?

Mr. Rowlands: Yes, it does, and that gives us an opportunity to debate it. The most recent one, in common with previous reports, continues to inform our debates.
I should like to draw specific attention to the other dimension to broadcasting in Wales—broadcasting in the English language. In some respects, other aspects of the Bill will have a disadvantageous effect upon the English language services and broadcasts in Wales. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North said, we should be deeply concerned about the centralised role of the BBC.
The figures are quite astonishing—BBC Wales broadcasts in the English language contribute just 19 hours to the BBC network. That even contrasts poorly with the output in Scotland, which contributes 90 hours. Even more astonishing, the factual and documentary programmes provided by Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales constitute just 1 per cent. of the total output. A major change of heart is needed by the BBC in relation to the two nations and the English regions.
I should like to draw the House's attention to the other means of English broadcasting in Wales—our commercial station, HTV. It will be greatly affected by the alterations in the Bill. The combined BBC and HTV investment in programmes in the English language adds up to only £25 million a year. That contrasts with the £63 million that is rightly dedicated to Welsh language programmes of S4C.
HTV will also be affected in three other serious ways, which will have a knock-on effect on potential English language broadcasts in Wales. First, in the past, HTV did not have to compete with Channel 4, because Channel 4 was part and parcel of S4C. The new Channel 4 in the digital age, however, will be a major competitor.
Secondly, £3 million from HTV will be returned to Channel 4, which is not committed to spending that money in Wales or in any of the other regions. Thirdly, HTV will face potential competition from S4C, which will have a role in one way or another in the production of English language programmes. On top of that, it is saddled with the incredible nonsense of the licensing arrangements that have led to HTV paying £23 million a year for its licence, whereas, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) has already said, Central pays £250,000—

Mr. Grocott: It pays £2,000.

Mr. Rowlands: Compare that with the £23 million cost of the HTV licence. That cost is a major drain on the development of English language broadcasts in Wales.
Many of the changes in the Bill are most welcome in relation to S4C, but we must consider the disadvantages that may be suffered by English language programme making in Wales, particularly that of HTV.
There is one simple solution to the problem. The renegotiation of the licence should coincide with the changes that will result from the Bill. The disadvantages that HTV will suffer as a result of the Bill could be compensated by changes to the licensing arrangements. That alteration, combined with the demands that we should rightly be making upon the BBC nationally to amend its attitude to English language broadcasting in Wales, would offer a solution. We should have a much more balanced view of broadcasting in Wales.
I hope that, if nothing else, we have impressed upon the Minister and the Department today, as we did in Committee, that broadcasting in Wales is not just a matter of the Welsh language. It goes much broader than that, relating to the opportunity and potential talent of so many people in Wales to express their skills also in the English language.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I support the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I was the second Member to put my name to it, and, emboldened by my presence, others more distinguished than I followed. Perhaps they did not have the courage to do so until they saw our joint names on the new clause.
As my hon. Friend would expect, I express my support from a slightly different point of view, as someone—here I must declare an interest—who presents a political programme on Sky Television. I speak for freedom, truth and justice, and Lord Tebbit speaks from his point of view. We discuss the issues of the week.
I support the new clause because it is right in principle. I support it because the trade union representatives who came to speak to us about the Bill want some quality control and quality influence on the part of the ITC to be included in the Bill. It is right that that should be done.
I support the new clause because, at the moment, the ITC's powers are inadequate. Its basic powers are to see that people live up to the terms of their submission for a contract, and to exercise an effective control over regional programmes and the amount of production for local viewing in the regions. It should have some power over quality, and have the ability to edge companies up-market. It is not good enough merely to give it the negative power to say, "You've departed from your contract."
The quality power enshrined in the new clause is appropriate, because we have seen a deterioration in the quality of current affair programmes in particular. The production of such programmes is always difficult, because they do not win audiences as news and entertainment programmes do. When I used to work in current affairs, it was a golden rule that such a programme lost between one third and a half of the audience, perhaps because I was on such programmes, that it started out with. It would be difficult to persuade companies to produce quality current affairs programmes unless the ITC had some power to demand it.
I also support the new clause because digital represents a whole new ball game, in which we must try to seek some guarantee of standards. Competition in television is intensifying, and it is possible that we will see the same remorseless slide down-market as we have seen in the press.
The standards of popular television in this country are higher than those of the popular press. We have the least worst television in the world, and perhaps the least best popular press. Why? Because the competition is not as intense in television, and because television is regulated to maintain standards in a way that is not possible in the press. We need that type of regulation. The new clause addresses that important issue directly. That is why it is necessary.
I must enter a caveat, because satellite needs a slightly different approach. One cannot achieve a level playing field in respect of the British percentage of programmes


or the definition of quality between satellite and cable on the one hand and terrestrial television on the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has pointed out the differences, and said that many satellite programmes represent high quality and British production. It is certainly true that Sky One and Sky News have not gone down market as many people expected.
Satellite is different, because it does not have access to the privileged channels that terrestrial represents. Those channels are privileged, powerful and universal channels. Satellite has had to build its own audience in its own way, and in doing so, it has responded to different needs. One means of building an audience is through massive investment in British productions, because people here like British-produced programmes.
Given the way in which satellite was launched, however, it was impossible to fulfil that requirement in the same way as terrestrial has managed to do. Satellite has therefore built up its audience by approaching the task differently and by providing a different kind of programme. It will not be able to jump suddenly into the same kind of box of requirements now met by the terrestrial channels.
The future of television must lie in the fact that most people will turn for their basic viewing to the terrestrial channels. That is what happens still in the United States. There is a multiplicity of channels in that country, but between 60 and 70 per cent. of the audience still watch basic network television. The same will happen here. People will rely for basic viewing on network television—the bread and butter of television.
People will turn to cable, satellite, perhaps digital—that is difficult to make predictions about at the moment—to follow up specialised interests such as sport or news. I confess that I am a news freak. I love CNN and Sky News, because they make it possible to watch the news as it happens. It is exciting. Some people are news freaks; some people want a variety of films. They will turn to cable, satellite or digital for a diet supplement of their own specialised interest. It is difficult to regulate the quality or the British production on cable, satellite or digital television as we would terrestrial channels.
7 pm
It is right for the ITC to have power and influence, but it cannot have what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South urged it to have—an absolutely level playing field, with the same requirements imposed on both sides. Indeed, as I read it, the new clause does not require that, because it uses the words
taking the relevant service as a whole"—
that could be the channel in cable and satellite—and the requirement is to obtain
a suitable proportion of original material".
Suitability
shall have the meaning assigned to it in guidance which shall be issued".
Inevitably, that suitability will be different for different channels on cable and satellite. We are saying not that the British content should be the same throughout, but that the ITC should have the power to edge up and raise standards.
Admittedly, quality is intangible. Some people assume that quality is taste. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South would admit "Blind Date" as a quality programme. I regard it as a quality programme. It has high production values, and it is entertaining and extremely well done. I am compelled to watch it because my wife loves it, so I do not have much alternative. Quality lies in production values, in training, as my hon. Friend said, and in the approach to programming, rather than in taste.
Television's role is to educate, inform and entertain. To do so, we must be able to ensure quality programming, maintain quality standards and give the ITC the power to keep pushing them up, to maintain the pressure, to review the position continually and to keep reviewing the British content. That is extremely important, because commercial pressures, which will intensify as we get more channels, are pushing things the other way. We want the ITC to have the power to combat that, to have its own role as it once did and should again, to maintain the quality we believe we have in British television, which we are entitled to maintain.

Mr. Stephen Timms: I support the new clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said, in Committee the Minister's position on quality was initially somewhat confused, but in discussion it became much clearer. He was pressed by Opposition members of the Committee on that point and, in response, said that, in his view, the Bill did allow the ITC to apply quality criteria by inheritance from the Broadcasting Act 1990, and that, other things being equal, the ITC could use quality as one of its criteria in determining digital licence applications. That is explicit, for example, in columns 66 and 68 of the Committee Hansard.
However, the ITC advised us throughout that that interpretation of the Bill was factually incorrect, and that the Bill did not give those powers to the commission. The Minister assured us that those fears were groundless, but now, in the letter that my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) mentioned a few moments ago, the Minister has accepted that the ITC was right, that he was mistaken, and that he inadvertently misled the Committee on that point.
What is really worrying is the part of the Minister's letter in which he spells out to the Committee the reality of this inheritance from the 1990 Act. I know, because I spoke to the ITC this afternoon, that it is dismayed about what the letter says. It says:
the ITC will be constrained in awarding licences to do so on the basis of the criteria set out in Clause 8".
That is exactly what worried members on both sides of the Committee who were concerned about quality, because clause 8 does not mention quality, regionality or originality.
If the ITC is indeed constrained to consider solely the criteria set out in clause 8, as the Minister's letter says, all the assurances that the Minister gave the Committee were without foundation. I hope that, in responding to the debate, he will at least confirm the rather weak assurances on this subject that he gave us in Committee, especially in column 68, that the ITC can take quality, regionality and originality into account, even though they are absent


from clause 8, because that alone is the basis on which the Bill emerged unamended on this point from the Committee.

Mr. Sproat: I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for tabling his amendment and giving us the chance to run through these extremely important issues. We know from Question Time before consideration of the Bill, from Second Reading and from Committee how important hon. Members on both sides of the House consider this matter to be. However, I cannot commend new clause 4 to the House. It appears to the Government to be much too restrictive.
We should compare the new clause with what currently applies to the broadcasting regulators. Currently, they are required to promote fair and effective competition and to ensure that, taken as a whole, the services they license are of high quality and calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests.
Within that general remit, there are specific statutory arrangements, spelling out the criteria to be applied in granting particular categories of licence. These take account of the very different circumstances of different licence categories. Strict and detailed programming and scheduling content conditions apply to the holders of regional Channel 3 licences. These are clearly not intended, for example, in the case of satellite, where the constraints of spectrum scarcity are so much less and there is consumer choice and subscription access rather than free-to-air broadcasting.
It is not as though the Bill actively precludes the quality and original UK programming criteria which this amendment seeks to make paramount for every service. The general duties in the 1990 Act, which I began by mentioning, will be applied by the Bill to the new digital programme services. This is what is secured by Government amendments Nos. 11 to 13. Under the Bill as it stands, the regulators will be free to take account of quality considerations in assessing how likely a particular programme package proposed by a multiplex applicant is to appeal to viewers and listeners and thereby promote their take-up of digital receiving equipment.
Similarly, quality considerations can be taken into account in considering, as the market develops, the acceptability of any licence variations relating to programming which a multiplex operator may propose. In the Government's view, this strikes the right balance between the need to ensure that the market can prosper and the need to allow the regulators to avoid any danger of a flood of low-quality or stale programming.
Similarly, the Bill applies a statutory requirement that new digital terrestrial television services include at least 10 per cent. of original European-produced programming, and the higher figure of 25 per cent. will apply in perpetuity to the digital broadcasting by channels 1 to 5 of the services provided in digital simulcast and after analogue switch-off on the new digital services on that channel of the multiplex.
New clause 4 is not needed, and does not propose a practical means of regulating commercial broadcasters. The Government will oppose it if the Opposition seek to put it to the vote.
Perhaps I might just say that, although it has been an extremely interesting debate, different people who have spoken have used the word "quality" for different

concepts. There is quality as applied to what one might call highbrow programming—I do not say that in anything other than a neutral sense—Shakespeare or high-class documentaries and so on. There is also quality in the sense that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) meant when he said that "Blind Date" is a high-quality show. I am sure that he is right—but it is a different sort of high quality. Both kinds are important, but it is also important to remember that the same word can be used in quite different senses.
The word "quality" can be used in yet another sense as well. Some people who talk about quality broadcasting mean that programming should include a certain number of hours of religious or educational broadcasting, or documentaries. Finally, quality can also be taken to mean taste, decency and impartiality—items that are taken into account in the Bill, and which were included in section 6 of the 1990 Act.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) mentioned the debates that we have had on the question of a backstop. I said that the lawyers could not make up their minds whether the backstop that I believe is in section 2 of the 1990 Act is imported to this Bill by schedule 7. Quite fairly, I told the Committee that I thought it was, but that, if not, I would bring it in: which is what I am doing. Besides taste, decency and impartiality, which are to be found in section 6, there is to be this second, albeit less important, backstop—in the form of the sort of quality that the ITC must take into account when scrutinising the whole range of services.
The same arguments apply to new clause 35, which relates to programming in Wales. It is a fact of commercial broadcasting that broadcasters need to appeal to their audiences. In Wales, that means broadcasting material of interest to those living in Wales; and HTV and S4C broadcast a wealth of material that reflects the cultural and linguistic heritage of Wales.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) for helping to educate me in the value of the English language in Wales as well as the Welsh language, and I thank him for sending me the text of a talk given by Mr. Geraint Talfan Davies, which I found fascinating.
The Government regard the new clauses as unnecessary, and will vote against both.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 289.

Division No. 159]
[7.12 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bell, Stuart


Ainger, Nick
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bennett, Andrew F


Allen, Graham
Benton, Joe


Alton, David
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Berry, Roger


Armstrong, Hilary
Betts, Clive


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Ashton, Joe
Blunkett, David


Austin-Walker, John
Boateng, Paul


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bradley, Keith


Barnes, Harry
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Battle, John
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Bayley, Hugh
Byers, Stephen






Caborn, Richard
Hall, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Hanson, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell-Savours, D N
Henderson, Doug


Canavan, Dennis
Heppell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hinchliffe, David


Chidgey, David
Hodge, Margaret


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoey, Kate


Church, Judith
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clapham, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Tom (MonkSands W)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howells, Dr Kim


Coffey, Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbett, Robin
Hutton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Illsley, Eric


Corston, Jean
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cox, Tom
Jamieson, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cunningham, Roseanna
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davidson, Ian
Jowell, Tessa


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Chris (L'Boro &amp; S'worth)
Keen, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&amp;S)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Khabra, Piara S


Denham, John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Kirkwood, Archy


Dixon, Don
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Terry


Donohoe, Brian H
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dowd, Jim
Litherland, Robert


Eagle, Ms Angela
Livingstone, Ken


Eastham, Ken
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Etherington, Bill
Llwyd, Elfyn


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lynne, Ms Liz


Fatchett, Derek
McAllion, John


Faulds, Andrew
McCartney, Ian


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Macdonald, Calum


Flynn, Paul
McFall, John


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
McKelvey, William


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mackinlay, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
McLeish, Henry


Fraser, John
Maclennan, Robert


Fyfe, Maria
McNamara, Kevin


Galbraith, Sam
MacShane, Denis


Galloway, George
McWilliam, John


Gapes, Mike
Madden, Max


Garrett, John
Maddock, Diana


George, Bruce
Mahon, Alice


Gerrard, Neil
Mandelson, Peter


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marek, Dr John


Godman, Dr Norman A
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gordon, Mildred
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Graham, Thomas
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Meacher, Michael


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meale, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Michael, Alun


Gunnell, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hain, Peter
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &amp; Bute)





Miller, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Morgan, Rhodri
Short, Clare


Morley, Elliot
Simpson, Alan


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Skinner, Dennis


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mudie, George
Snape, Peter


Mullin, Chris
Spearing, Nigel


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Spellar, John


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Hara, Edward
Stevenson, George


Olner, Bill
Stott Roger


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Straw, Jack


Parry, Robert
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pickthall, Colin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Pike, Peter L
Timms, Stephen


Pope, Greg
Touhig, Don


Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)
Trickett, Jon


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Turner, Dennis


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tyler, Paul


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Primarolo, Dawn
Wallace, James


Purchase, Ken
Walley, Joan


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Radice, Giles
Wareing, Robert N


Randall, Stuart
Wicks, Malcolm


Raynsford, Nick
Wlliams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Rendel, David
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wilson, Brian


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Winnick, David


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wise, Audrey


Rogers, Allan
Worthington, Tony


Rooker, Jeff
Wray, Jimmy


Rooney, Terry
Wright, Dr Tony


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Ross, William (E Londonderry)



Rowlands, Ted
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ruddock, Joan
Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Eric Martlew.


Sedgemore, Brian





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Bowis, John


Alexander, Richard
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Brandreth, Gyles


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Brazier, Julian


Amess, David
Bright, Sir Graham


Arbuthnot, James
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brown, M (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)


Ashby, David
Browning, Mrs Angela


Aspinwall, Jack
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkinson, David (Boumm'th E)
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Butcher, John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Butler, Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Butterfill, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Bates, Michael
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Batiste, Spencer
Carttiss, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Cash, William


Bendall, Vivian
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Beresford, Sir Paul
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Churchill, Mr


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clappison, James


Booth, Hartley
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Boswell, Tim
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Coe, Sebastian


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Colvin, Michael






Congdon, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jack, Michael


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jenkin, Bernard


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan, Alan
Key, Robert


Duncan Smith, Iain
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knapman, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knox, Sir David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evennett, David
Legg, Barry


Faber, David
Leigh, Edward


Fabricant, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lidington, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Luff, Peter


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
MacKay, Andrew


Fry, Sir Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, Sir David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Malone, Gerald


Garnier, Edward
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Gillan, Cheryl
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorst, Sir John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Merchant, Piers


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mills, Iain


Hague, Rt Hon William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Moss, Malcolm


Hannam, Sir John
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Nick
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholls, Patrick


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Norris, Steve


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hendry, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Hicks, Sir Robert
Paice, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Horam, John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pawsey, James





Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Sykes, John


Pickles, Eric
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Powell, William (Corby)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Thomason, Roy


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Richards, Rod
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Riddick, Graham
Thurnham, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Tracey, Richard


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tredinnick, David


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Trend, Michael


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Trotter, Neville


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sackville, Tom
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Walden, George


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)



Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Ward, John


Shersby, Sir Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Sims, Sir Roger
Watts, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Soames, Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Spencer, Sir Derek
Whittingdale, John


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spink, Dr Robert
Wilkinson, John


Sproat, Iain
Willetts, David


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Stephen, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stewart, Allan



Streeter, Gary
Tellers for the Noes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


Sweeney, Walter

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 7

PLAN FOR REDUCTION OF VIOLENCE DEPICTED ON TELEVISION

`(1) The Secretary of State shall draw up a plan within one year of this Act receiving Royal Assent with the aim of reducing the amount of violence depicted on television.
(2) The Secretary of State shall present to Parliament in the form of a White Paper the plan drawn up under subsection (1).
(3) The Secretary of State shall make a report to Parliament annually concerning the amount of violence depicted on television and progress towards achieving the objectives mentioned in subsection (1).'.—[Mr. Dafis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dafis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 10—Duty of the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC) to carry out research into use of 'V' chip to regulate portrayal of violence on television— 
`.—It shall be the duty of the BSC to carry out research into the effects on viewers of the level and frequency of s of violence contained in television programmes and into the feasibility and desirability of requiring the installation in all new television sets of


an electronic device designed, subject to an override power, automatically to block the reception of programmes whose violent content falls within a predetermined classification as being unsuitable for viewing by persons under the age of eighteen.'.
New clause 11—Duty of the broadcasters to classify programmes according to violent content— 
`.—(1) It shall be the duty of every broadcasting body to establish a common system of classification for all programmes containing material of a violent nature.
(2) The system established under subsection (1) shall provide, whether by the use of symbols or some other means, for the differential classification of programmes containing different levels of violent material.
(3) It shall be the duty of the appropriate regulatory body, or in the case of the BBC the Board of Governors, to ensure that the requirement in subsection (1) is complied with and that steps are taken to publish both before and during transmission of the programme in question the classification which has been applied to it.
(4) "Broadcasting body" in subsection (I) includes the holder of a licence under this Act or the 1990 Act, the BBC and Channel 4.'.

Mr. Dafis: I shall start with the presumption that what people watch, listen to and read influences their attitudes, values, psychological make-up, behaviour and the quality of their spiritual life—particularly during their formative years. This statement is nothing more than common sense, but it is a position that is often lost during sophisticated argument.
If what I have said is true, if great skill, creativity, major investment and the deployment of technological resources are brought to bear on what people watch and listen to—as happens with television—the influence will be significant, if not enormous. In this context, we need to bear in mind the extent to which television is driven by commercial considerations and by the profit motive.
Society has the right to require those who prepare and deliver television services to exercise that influence with responsibility and to consider the general welfare of the community. Freedom of expression is an enormously important consideration—I believe that passionately. I have studied Aereopagitica. I was horrified by the attempt to silence the great writer, Salman Rushdie, who wrote the inspired and profoundly modern book The Satanic Verses. Like all freedoms—freedom from violence, freedom from attack, freedom from sexual exploitation and from oppression—freedom of expression must be exercised so as not to damage the freedom of others and of society. The depiction of violence and sexual activity or pornography together is particularly pernicious.
We are in a difficult area when talking about freedom. There is a real danger that we may muzzle artists in the name of conformity and respectability and that we may prevent the truth from being told. I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that my new clause applies specifically to violence and to the amount of violence that is shown on television. We all recognise that art must depict the reality of the human condition, including violence and depravity. No one would advocate—I do not—sanitising television programmes or art. However, there are legitimate questions to ask about, first, the quantity of violent depictions; secondly, the nature of those depictions; and, thirdly, the motivation for depicting violence on television. Those issues must be addressed.
We must recognise also that we face an unprecedented situation with the scale of television and the electronic media. Great artists have always been fascinated by what

happens to the human character in extremis: they have always been fascinated by murder and sex and the relationship between the two. That is particularly true of two great artists, Sophocles and Shakespeare. However, it is misleading to compare their depictions with what we see on television.
Theatrical depictions were always highly stylised—the most horrifying events would often occur off-stage. Oedipus's self-blinding occurs offstage, as do the murders of Duncan, of Macduff s children and of Cordelia.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: What about the blinding of Gloucester?

Mr. Dafis: I was coming to that—"Out vile jelly"; I know the play well. Even more vivid and terrible is Othello's murder of Desdemona, which also occurs on-stage. A great artist's depiction of such events in a tragedy fulfils a vital function: Aristotle talked about the process of arousing pity and terror to achieve a catharsis of the emotions. That has been my experience of such plays. Even when terrible events were depicted on-stage, it was done in a highly stylised manner: the horror was more in the words that in the s. My point is that the crude props of the Elizabethan stage could not portray those events with the totally convincing realism and intimate detail that are possible on television and film. The electronic media is a different ball game.
Another consideration is the frequency with which one sees violent events depicted. The typical Elizabethan would visit a London theatre—at the zenith of theatre's popularity—a few times a year, at best. When I was a boy, I managed to get to the pictures once a week—assuming that I gathered enough empty jam pots to take to the grocer and raised ninepence for a ticket. I did not see television until I was 16—and I thank God that I grew up free from its influence. The situation is altogether different today. We cannot compare what occurred in the past with the presence of television in the home—we are told that people watch it for four or five hours daily. Televisions can be found not only in the family room but in the bedrooms of children and young people.

Ms Eagle: I ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify his new clause which proposes reducing the amount of violence that is depicted on television. Does that include the coverage of violent events on the television news?

Mr. Dafis: I do not differentiate between the depiction of violence on the news and on fictional programmes. The material consideration is the sheer quantity of violent depictions. I do not argue that violence should not be depicted on television, but I raise the issue of quantity. It is well known that many people fear that even the presentation of violent scenes on the news can have an inuring effect and can desensitise people to violence. We must be aware of that danger—as must news editors when they select footage to show on the news. I am viewing the issue in the round and considering the total number of depictions of violence.
We face a new situation and, in that context, the fondness of artists and authors for depicting violence must be viewed differently. We must bear it in mind that much violence is depicted in the pursuit of ratings—that is the


great motivator. Many hon. Members will have seen the report on teachers' views and concerns about the matter. The findings of a survey of teachers conducted by the Professional Association of Teachers—a union about which I am not particularly enthusiastic—correspond with the experiences that I gained while working as a teacher and with the views that I sought from other teachers.
That survey points out that schoolteachers are profoundly concerned about the influence of violence on television on their pupils. They believe that children's viewing habits are not monitored sufficiently by parents and that the current safeguards which are designed to protect children from exposure to adult entertainment are not working. Most important, teachers believe that children are profoundly affected by the television programmes and the videos that they see. As children's value systems are not fully formed, there is consequently a strong tendency for them to assume that what they see portrayed is normal. They may try to imitate or to emulate such behaviour. Mimicry is one manifestation of an influence, but the most damaging influence is more deep-seated and subtle than that. Teachers believe that, in some cases, children who spend a great deal of time watching violent programmes may suffer behavioural consequences.
I have spoken tonight about children, but no one is immune to the influence of violent material. No one is immune to that exposure, but the danger to children is clear. I believe that there is too much violence on television and that we, as legislators, have a responsibility to try to reduce it. That is what my new clause would do. It takes a different approach to the problem from new clause 10, which is the V-chip proposal. I support that idea, but it involves parents intervening and accepting their responsibilities. I am emphasising the responsibility of the programme makers, including the authors, producers, commissioners and the channel operators. Their responsibility needs to be recognised. I am inclined, when the time comes, to force new clause 7 to a Division.

Mr. Michael Alison: I have much sympathy with new clause 7, tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), but I wish to follow his general introduction to the theme of violence by associating myself with new clauses 10 and 11. Those two new clauses were tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and it is only by chance, and the way that the turn to speak, like a tennis service, goes backwards and forwards across the Floor of the House, that he is not speaking to the new clauses first.
I wish to express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the interest and concern that she has expressed about the problem of violence, not least in the letter that she sent to me last week, from which I shall quote later. I also thank my right hon. Friend for her courtesy in referring in that letter to the report entitled "Violence, Pornography and the Media", which has all-party support and which was prepared and presented on behalf of the Family and Child Protection Group, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight).
My right hon. Friend Secretary of State has seen the report, studied it and made helpful comments about it. I hope that she has noted the public opinion survey results, from an adequately large sample of more than 1,000 people who were questioned by a reputable professional

research organisation. The summarised data from that poll show that 65 per cent. of those questioned or interviewed—a high proportion—are "concerned" or "very concerned" about the level of sex and violence used as entertainment in the media nowadays. Those 65 per cent. contrast with the figure of only 27 per cent. who are "not very concerned".
In the same poll, the summarised findings show that 58 per cent. of those questioned agreed with Dustin Hoffman's now notorious attribution of screen violence as one of the contributory causes of the Dunblane and Tasmanian massacres. That is a remarkable result. Some 58 per cent. of those polled agreed with Hoffman that screen violence was a contributory factor in the Dunblane and Tasmanian massacres and only 16 per cent. of those polled disagreed with that.

Mr. Brooke: There is a hazard in quoting such documents in a debate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend did not intend to mislead the House, but he has quoted a figure of 16 per cent. and it should be 28 per cent.

Mr. Alison: My right hon. Friend is correct. Some 28 per cent. disagreed with Dustin Hoffman and 58 per cent. agreed with him.
Dr. Park Dietz, the chief psychiatrist of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, claimed that the factual worldwide portrayal of the massacre at Dunblane was a causative factor in the Tasmanian mass killing which followed soon after. That view, expressed by a professional psychiatrist—admittedly in the United States—suggests that the scenes from Dunblane had a direct effect on the weird criminal in Tasmania. I am not trying to persuade the House that news reportage is not inescapable and inevitable, but the portrayal of violence has a curious and unpredictable effect and the benefit of the doubt should always, when possible, be given to those who seek to restrict it.

Ms Eagle: The right hon. Gentleman has made an emotive, and debatable, connection between one event and another. Can he tell me why Dustin Hoffman should be considered an expert on such matters? Was not the easy availability of firearms much more of a problem in those appalling tragedies than how they were portrayed in the news media after they had happened?

Mr. Alison: I certainly would not claim that Dustin Hoffman is an expert. I am merely suggesting that he expressed a vivid viewpoint that is significant because the public were asked their opinion about it. The viewpoint stands on its own merits and, for a large proportion of those questioned for the survey, it was crystallised by the association with a prominent public figure. That screen violence was a contributory factor to real violence was an expression of the popular view and, if not demonstrably proven, that is what many people think.
I shall quote a sentence from the letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to me:
To assume that violence may have an effect on some vulnerable individuals seems to me to be sound commonsense.
I entirely support and endorse my right hon. Friend's comment, and that is exactly the view that was expressed by the 58 per cent. who believed that Hoffman had expressed a rational and credible viewpoint.
Question No. 6 in the poll—I shall give the figures carefully, because my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) is clearly shadowing me—asks:
Do you think the current safeguards to protect children from seeing violence and sex in the media, either through TV or video are too little, too much or about right?
Some 68 per cent. thought the safeguards were too little, 5 per cent. thought they were too much and 24 per cent. thought they were about right. I hope that my right hon. Friend will allow me not to bother to quote the "None/Don't know" figure. I hope that the House will have noted that 68 per cent. of those questioned in that substantial poll thought that the current safeguards were inadequate.
A significant paragraph on page 13 of the report, on the alleged effect of media violence, says:
An American account of the effect upon children stated that the average child watches 12,000 violent acts annually including 1,000 rapes, armed robberies and assaults, and concluded that 15 per cent. of all violence was television induced. Professor Comstock"—
the author of the research—
has found 'a very solid relationship between viewing antisocial portrayals or violent episodes and behaving antisocially'.
That, too, is a common-sense observation and it is endorsed by what my right hon. Friend said in her letter to me.
The views of the New Zealand psychologists who examined the matter are particularly significant because of the ghastly tragedy that occurred in the antipodes. The views of the New Zealand Psychological Society related to the watching of television, and are set out on page 12 of the report. It noted a causal relationship between the amount of film violence viewed and subsequent aggressive and anti-social behaviour among both children and adults. It found that
constant exposure has a desensitising effect with less physiological and psychological reaction",
that
specific films may provide models which are directly imitated
and
the more realistic is film violence, the more likely it is to lead to aggressive behaviour.
A striking and deeply disturbing response to the inquiry appears on page 40—those colleagues who have the report can follow the plot—which quotes a survey by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in February 1995 dealing with playground accidents and copycat play. It was conducted by post and addressed to the head teachers of 250 schools, of which 91 replied. The replies received showed that 91 per cent. of the responding head teachers felt that violent television programmes were linked to aggressive behaviour in schools; 79 per cent. said that there had been examples of injuries linked to copycat play; 96 per cent. thought that educationists, safety experts and broadcasters should produce a code of practice specifically to deal with violence in children's television; and 52 per cent. mentioned Power Rangers by name. Given that the poll was sent to 250 schools, 91 replies was not as full a response as one might have wished for. Nevertheless, it is not an insubstantial number. The fact that the response showed a direct linkage

between injury and pain caused in playground bullying or violence and television violence must give profound cause for concern in every part of the House.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State concedes that the public feel profoundly about this issue. Their common-sense view is that too much violence is particularly damaging for children, who have much readier access to it than they are meant to have under current efforts to restrain their viewing. The 9 pm watershed is clearly ineffectual because late-night programmes can be taped on video recorders once children have gone to bed and watched at a later date. That common-sense reaction, endorsed by my right hon. Friend, shows that there is a direct link, and we want the Bill to do something practical in response to public anxieties and misgivings.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the facts, suggestions and proposals made in this parliamentary report.

Mr. David Alton: I am happy to follow the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and to support new clause 7. Taken together, new clauses 7, 10 and 11 demonstrate the partnership that is required between Government, Parliament, broadcasters and parents. No one would be naive enough to say that the only factors that create a violent society are violent or disturbing s, or that every person who sees violent scenes will necessarily be tipped over the edge. Nevertheless, there is widespread support for the view that the amount of violence on television is now spiralling out of control. That view must be reflected and action taken.
It is therefore important to point out what the new clauses would actually do, rather than what some have suggested that they might do. New clause 7, which calls for an annual report and a White Paper, is reflective and suggests that we take a deeper look at the problem. New clause 10, which stands in my name and is supported by the right hon. Member for Selby, the hon. Members for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) and other Conservative Members, and by the hon. Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). shows the spectrum of support within the House.
New clause 10 calls on the Broadcasting Standards Council to carry out research into the effects on viewers of the level and frequency of violent s contained in television programmes, and into the feasibility and desirability of requiring the installation in all new television sets of what is popularly known as a V-chip. It does not go so far as some of us advocated on Second Reading, when we said that manufacturers should place a V-chip in all new sets. It recognises that we have yet to have a debate on that matter. Incidentally, that debate did not take place in Committee, so let us have that debate to reflect on the further action to be taken.
New clause 11 says that in the meantime we should get on with classifying programmes so that parents can decide what might be suitable for viewing in their homes and have some idea of what will be broadcast. If that can be electronically classified, as will be possible in the future, that will be all to the good.

Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman has praised new clause 7. Does he agree that new clause 10 pre-empts the outcome of the research suggested in new clause 7?

Mr. Alton: No, it does not. New clause 10 refers to
research into the effects on viewers of … violence".
It then refers to the "desirability" of the V-chip as one weapon in the armoury. No one is saying that it is the only solution. However, given that 2 million people petitioned the Canadian Parliament, given that members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, supported the new law signed by President Clinton to introduce the V-chip in the United States, given that the European Parliament has said that there should be a Europe-wide system of V-chips—that argument may not commend itself to some hon. Members—given the widespread debate in Europe and North America, and given the fact that action has already been taken, it would be absurd for us to deny British viewers the V-chip.
8 pm
There is wide all-party Back-Bench support for the proposal. More than 200 hon. Members signed an early-day motion that I tabled in 1993 calling for a royal commission on the causes of violence. In 1994, more than 250 hon. Members signed an early-day motion calling for the increased regulation of violent videos. The House will recall that the determination of hon. Members of all parties led the Home Secretary of the time, albeit reluctantly, to introduce changes in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
This year, more than 250 hon. Members have signed an early-day motion which condemns the British Board of Film Classification for certifying "Natural Born Killers" as a video suitable for home release and calls on the Government to implement the law as changed in 1994. Sad to say, there has been no response to that call as yet. However, in the context of this debate, it is not without significance that as part of a package of films, "Natural Born Killers" has been purchased by the BBC for possible broadcast on British television. John Birt says in a letter to me that no decision has yet been taken on whether that broadcast will go ahead.
I draw hon. Members' attention to this morning's edition of The Daily Telegraph, which says:
Oliver Stone sued for £20 million by victim of copycat film violence.
John Grisham, the well-known novelist, is taking Oliver Stone to court because a friend of his was killed in a copycat killing based on the film "Natural Born Killers". There is no doubt that litigation, which is so popular in the United States, may lead to enormous downward pressure on the industry. Hollywood is looking at the outcome of that case, which may have far more long-term consequences than any debate about V-chips in the House today.
Only last week, the Press Association reported a case in Canada under the headline:
Youth Killed and Skinned Young Playmate.
In Saskatchewan, a 14-year-old boy was influenced by a horror film he saw at least 10 times. There is often the problem of people videoing films, watching them again and again, and becoming obsessed by them. The report says that the boy

cooked his victim's flesh on a stove".
According to the defence lawyer, Barry Singer, the boy was under the delusion
after repeated viewings of the horror movie 'Warlock' that he would be able to fly if he drank boiled fat from his victim, 7-year-old Johnathan Thimpsen.
We are not talking about fantasyland; these things are actually happening. We need only think back to the case of Suzanne Capper, who was tortured to death while her torturers played a recording of the words and music from the "Child's Play III" video, to which the right hon. Member for Selby referred in the context of the Tasmanian killing. It was a film that the killer's girlfriend said that he had watched again and again.

Ms Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that actual events in news programmes should come within the purview of his suggestion? Does he believe that there should be censorship of news?

Mr. Alton: Categorically no. I do not think that there should be censorship of news. The hon. Lady may find more common cause with me than she imagines, as I am not suggesting that anyone other than the parent or person at home should censor anything. If any of us wished to have a V-chip installed in our television set, we would be free to do so. If we did not want a V-chip, we would not have to have one. People would decide what they wanted coming into their home. The Government rightly talk about putting more power in the hands of individual viewers and giving them more responsibility for themselves. That principle is entirely in accord with the idea of providing parents and viewers with these rights.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: That is not what new clause 10 says. It refers to the
desirability of requiring the installation in all new television sets of an electronic device".

Mr. Alton: The new clause refers to the "desirability".

Mr. Mitchell: It refers to "all new television sets".

Mr. Alton: We should consider whether it is desirable. My view is that the installation of a V-chip should be left entirely to the consumer. As I said earlier, I have drawn back from the idea that we should require every manufacturer to install a V-chip, and that is why I have not tabled such an amendment today. New clause 10 says that we should look at the feasibility and desirability of installing V-chips. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that the matter should be entirely one on which each person decides. He has my assurance on that.

Mr. Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman has talked about parental responsibility. I am the father of three young daughters. I am very concerned about violence at 9 o'clock in the morning in cartoon programmes, not violence at 9 o'clock at night. I am a little worried that the V-chip proposal could be seen as a panacea and could thus take away parental responsibility. Just as one lets the children watch the cartoons in the morning because one wants to do other things, so one might leave the room and assume that the V-chip has


solved all the problems although there might be things that are totally inappropriate for three-year-olds or seven-year-olds to watch.

Mr. Alton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I, too, have three young children, from seven years down. Any parent who uses a television set and computer games as electronic baby sitters is being downright irresponsible. They can never take the place of parents. It would equally be absurd for us to suggest that the flickering box in the corner which has taken the place of the hearth, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) said, can be ignored and that we can somehow turn back the clock.
Television is part and parcel of modern life. The issue is how we can regulate it in a way that is responsible and reasonable. If one can scramble signals coming into one's home by electronic means rather than by the parent having to be there day and night, one has some limited control. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) is right: I am not suggesting that the V-chip is a panacea; I see it as a tool, as a weapon in the armoury, no more and no less.

Ms Eagle: How would the installation of V-chips deal with the serious problem of parental irresponsibility? Irresponsible parents will not make use of the V-chip.

Mr. Alton: I have said that I do not see the V-chip as a panacea. It will be a tool for parents who want to exercise responsibility. In addition, we would put a downward pressure on those who make films that contain ridiculously high levels of gratuitous violence. New clause 7 provides that an annual report should be made to Parliament concerning the amount of violence depicted on television. I said at the outset that new clauses 7, 10 and 11 should be taken together. I agree that the V-chip is not the only solution.
The hon. Lady will know of people on the great sink estates, such as those in our conurbation on Merseyside and elsewhere, who live in situations where there may be relative economic prosperity, but where there may be deep levels of spiritual poverty in the sense of lack of love, lack of parenting and lack of help, where children are often left to fend for themselves. That is the situation into which we pour an unending diet of violence and that, in turn, creates the violent society in which we live today.
On 23 June, The Sunday Times found that two thirds of children aged between nine and 11 had watched 18-rated movies such as "Silence of the Lambs", "Basic Instinct" and "Pulp Fiction". That touches on the point that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has just made. There is a need to tackle the problem universally, not just through the V-chip. More than half the children covered by the survey had televisions in their bedrooms and more than a quarter had VCRs in their bedrooms. In my opinion, that is as potentially dangerous as allowing a stranger in a child's bedroom.
Mention has been made of the survey by the Professional Association of Teachers. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has called for more controls on screen violence, as has the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Over the years, the

Government have expressed their concern about screen violence through statutory provisions giving powers to the British Board of Film Censors, the Independent Television Commission and the proposed Broadcasting Standards Commission to maintain standards of taste and decency, specifying gratuitous violence as a particular concern. However, those safeguards have failed to halt a culture of screen violence that is spiralling out of control.
The right hon. Member for Selby mentioned the comments of Dustin Hoffman. Recently, Ben Elton has been writing and stating publicly that far too much violence is broadcast on television and it should be curbed. Charlton Heston has also spoken against screen violence. David Puttnam, who many hon. Members greatly admire and respect because of his contribution to British film making, said last year that the railway company does not wait until a child has been run over by a train before deciding to put up a fence along the railway line. That is all the House is being asked to do tonight.
New clauses 10 and 11 represent modest proposals in tackling screen violence. V-chip technology is at the cutting edge of the battle against screen violence. Its application has been thoroughly researched and tested in Canada, where it was agreed that it should be a feature of all new sets. V-chip technology is not limited to new sets; it can be installed in old sets for about £2.
The main benefit of the V-chip is not the extra control that it gives parents who choose to use it—although that is a significant bonus—but its impact on broadcasters. The obligation to classify programmes would not only force broadcasters to develop a working code on violence, but would confront them each day with the implications of including gratuitous violence in their programmes.
The Minister will know from the extensive lobbying that she has received from broadcasters and advertisers that the V-chip will mean that broadcasters cannot guarantee the advertisers particular audience levels for programmes that contain gratuitous violence. Surely that is good as it would put pressure on those who make such programmes. It always strikes me as slightly ironic that the same advertisers who are against the curtailment of outlets for putting their advertisements into programmes spend £4,000 million every year trying to sell us their wares on television. If they did not think that what we saw had any influence on us, presumably they would not spend so much money on television advertising.
Who is opposed to our modest and reasonable proposals? It has been suggested that the V-chip would encourage broadcasters to show more violence. That is incorrect for the following reasons. First, none of the proposals dismantle existing controls on broadcasters or negate their responsibility to respect standards of taste and decency. I expect that the Secretary of State will tell us that the ITV companies and the BBC have become more sensitive to violence. However, I would expect that to be the case whether or not parents are given extra controls.
Secondly, commercial pressure from advertisers seeking verifiable audience figures would be brought to bear on the broadcasters, who would be less likely to opt for increasing violence to grab high ratings. Thirdly, the evidence of the regulation of screen violence in the film industry is that although some directors continue to test and exceed the limits, the majority seek to produce films with a lower rating in order to guarantee a wider target audience—for example, a PG rating rather than an 18 rating.
It is further argued that although the United States has opted for the V-chip technology, it has had little effect on the mounting levels of horrific violence shown on American television. That is a specious argument which misunderstands the nature of broadcasting in the United States. United States broadcasters face strict regulation on sex and language, but they operate in a far more permissive regime with regard to violence. V-chip technology has yet to be introduced in the United States. Until that happens, it is ridiculous to brand it ineffective. There is no watershed in the United States and broadcasters can show violent programmes at any time.
The principal argument against the V-chip comes from the advertisers. It is not without significance that the Advertising Association arranged for opponents of the V-chip from the United States to attend a seminar at the Department of National Heritage. According to the Advertising Association's public relations office, civil servants made the arrangements and the same opponents also had meetings with the Secretary of State. If the Advertising Association was asked to bring in opponents of the V-chip from the United States, why did it not fly in supporters of the V-chip and hear from the people who are in favour of it before today's debate?
In Britain, the watershed is now being used as a fig-leaf to cover the increasingly gross content of broadcasting into the early hours. That is a more fundamental concern than any theoretical question about the effect that the V-chip might have on broadcasters in future. The Sunday Times demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the watershed in the figures that I have already given the House.
Those who believe that it is all a matter of parental control should reflect on what these surveys tell us about the capacity of the majority of parents to control what their children see, let alone what they see when they are outside their parents' control—for instance at friends' homes.
The amendments represent a modest but useful step in the right direction. They reflect the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House as well as those of the electorate and I commend them to the House.

Mr. David Mellor: I shall make only a brief contribution to the debate so eloquently introduced by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), whose knowledge of Shakespeare I envy and admire.
We should all be concerned about violence on the screen. However, the idea that the V-chip can contribute to the control of that violence is completely untenable and unsustainable. To illustrate that, I shall expand briefly on the points that I made on Second Reading.
I am something of a veteran of these encounters, having started as a Home Office Minister with the Video Recordings Bill 1984—which established video classifications—introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Sir G. Bright). One of the tragedies of such debates is that they tend to polarise opinion, largely because the case for change is overstated. It is impossible not to have the highest regard for my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), but to suggest that the Dunblane massacre is relevant to the debate was profoundly misleading. Thomas Hamilton had many problems in addition to being warped by television

violence. If we wanted to do something positive about Dunblane, we would not wait until Lord Cullen produced his report before taking action.
As a Home Office Minister, I remember trawling endlessly through research on screen violence. Frankly. it is an abdication of our responsibility in the House to ask researchers to tell us whether such s are damaging. Researchers cannot tell us that. However, research has made it absolutely clear that damaged personalities can be further damaged by exposure to extreme violence. Most of us can watch scenes of extreme violence and merely feel repelled that we live in a society which produces such entertainment. It does not make us want to go out and hack somebody to bits. Although we should not underestimate the common sense of most of our fellow citizens, there is no doubt that some people are deeply warped and damaged by screen violence. It probably inflames their imaginations and causes some of them to go over the edge—it may be a precipitating factor.
Although it was interesting to hear about some of the curious responses to opinion pollsters—perhaps to satirise the whole process of opinion polling—nevertheless, one of the problems of addressing screen violence is the ambivalence of the public response. The very members of the public who say how much they deplore screen violence will watch it. Why are those films made? Why are those television programmes shown? Many of them are high-audience programmes. They are shown because they attract an audience and because sensationalism attracts people. That is why we can place very little faith in public opinion surveys. Surely we must place faith in our own common sense and the structures that Parliament has established to control those elements and ensure that those controls are exercised effectively.
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) referred to television news. There is censorship of television news. It is not applied externally, but by the editors of television news programmes who—perfectly honourably—often choose to reject footage that would be sensational because it is too awful to be seen. We should encourage them to do that. Scenes of a massacre are not made that much more attractive by close-ups of bodies and glorious technicolour shots of wounds.
By the same token, we must accept that, although television is in the firing line tonight, the real problem with extreme screen violence lies with Hollywood and our obsession with American culture. What Dustin Hoffman said is relevant because he is representative of an increasing trend in Hollywood, which should have begun before, of people who, having made millions and millions of pounds out of films, are suddenly becoming repelled by the very industry in which they have been involved.
I am glad that we have moved on to talking about violence. Years ago, when I started in the business, if one may so describe it, we talked about sex. Violence has rightly moved to the centre of the stage, and for that at least we can be grateful because we ought to be particularly concerned about violence, and certainly about extreme sexual violence.
Every film that a director makes, he makes to establish a certain notoriety; to push the frontiers forward. He also makes it on the basis that someone else will come along and do something more extreme. We do not need to add new clauses to do something about that. We have the British Board of Film Classification, which has the power to neuter


such products by refusing to grant them a licence. We should encourage it to do so, but not in order to present some fairy-tale vision of the world or to suggest that the world outside may be awful but what will be shown will be only what would pass for entertainment 50 years ago.
One cannot turn the clock back. We should encourage the BBFC to take action if it sees a film that plainly and simply wants to reproduce exploitative violence to attract and create sensation and to draw people in to do nothing more profound than shock them more deeply than they were by what they saw the previous month.

Mr. John Whittingdale: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that—I believe—only two films have been permanently refused certificates for video release by the BBFC? One was "The Exorcist" and the other was "Straw Dogs" which, of course, starred Dustin Hoffman?

Mr. Mellor: That is not quite true. It is probably true of films that were given a cinema classification but were then refused for home release. There is a restricted category that was taken out of any classification, which was introduced by the Video Recordings Act 1984. Indeed, I had to watch some of those films, such as "Faces of Death" and "Driller Killer". Does anybody want to join me on this trip down memory lane? There is nothing new under the sun—we were into all that sort of stuff 12 years ago.
One of the reasons why I disagree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is that he sells his own case short by using all the profound points that he made about the damage done to already damaged lives to suggest that the V-chip has something to contribute. The V-chip is a piece of escapism. Does anyone understand what its introduction would mean? It is a crude piece of equipment. It operates only on a scale of one to five. It does not have a mind of its own. If five represents extreme violence, it is triggered and shuts off only because the material has been pre-censored and said to be of category five.
Although I agree with what the hon. Member for Mossley Hill said about sink estates, they are precisely the areas in which nobody would bother with the V-chip. Middle-class parents who do not have to worry that their child will turn into some teenage werewolf are probably the ones who will have their V-chip humming away. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, the V-chip is a sad delusion.
We must say that good people sit on the Independent Television Commission, that good people are governors on the board of the BBC, that—one hopes—good people sit on the Broadcasting Standards Council, or whatever the wretched thing will he called now that it has been amalgamated with another equally wretched body whose purpose has never been particularly clearly established in my mind, although I think that I was responsible for some of the legislation that created it.
Leaving that aside, there are mechanisms of control and—on a sensible, all-party basis, one hopes—we must encourage and support them, to create not Toytown but a sane world within which people can be exposed to powerful and even shocking entertainment out of which

we take the kind of extreme violence that has no place in our society and that we know is damaging. We do not need some fellow from Essex university to conduct a survey for five years to tell us what is damaging. We know in our own minds that such stuff is not needed.
With respect to those who propose the V-chip, there is no technological answer to the problems that we face. Above all, there is no answer which, in effect, goads people who want some adult entertainment into feeling that they must defend some extreme things to get away from some of the quite impossible arguments that are raised against it. Surely we can reach some kind of common-sense consensus based on the principle that we in this House charge the broadcasting authorities with responsibility and it is up to them to discharge such responsibility and not escape through technology if they do not do so. It is for us to hold them to account for the powerful tool that we have put in their hands.

Dr. John Cunningham: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) on bringing some clarity to the debate. I should say straight away that I sympathise with the aims and objectives of the hon. Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) and for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). Parents and, indeed, many people who are not parents, would be generally sympathetic to what they have said about gratuitous violence or explicit sex and its potential impact on young people.
I share the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Putney that to seek a solution in technology is almost amusing. The idea that parents know more than their children about how to use electronic gadgets is—I speak for myself, at least—somewhat amusing. The idea that children would not find which of their friends' parents did not have a V-chip in their television and be off round the corner to watch programmes in their friends' homes should also be borne in mind. Children and young people are extremely ingenious and will find ways around such things, even if the solution is practical.
I am not particularly against the V-chip proposals. If people want to be able to buy such technology, they should have the right to do so and there is no reason why it should not be marketed either as an option in new television sets or to be retro-fitted to existing sets. I am not opposed to that, but when we realise that there are about 36 million television sets in the country it becomes clear that retro-fitting the V-chip would be quite a long job even assuming a significant number of people wanted to do it.
There is also the problem of V-chips in video recorders and the need for them in personal computers. The number of pieces of equipment that, in theory, would need a V-chip to protect young people is colossal. To talk about the V-chip as a permanent solution or even as a readily available solution is to raise false hopes. Such a solution will not happen on anything like the scale that is necessary to have much of an impact.
I agree with another point that the right hon. and learned Member for Putney made. Responsible parents—parents who want to exercise some control and guidance—are the ones who would be most attracted to the V-chip, and the very parents who abdicate parental responsibility and do not exercise it in any way are the least likely to invest in the technology.

Mr. Alton: Although I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's point, does he not accept that he is inviting the House to tilt at the wrong windmills? Nobody is saying that the V-chip is a panacea. All we are arguing for is the right for people to have the technology if they so wish. Does he also accept that all the arguments that he has just advanced could be applied to the United States of America or Canada, where legislators have arrived at conclusions that are different to his.

Dr. Cunningham: Of course it is true that those arguments could be applied on both sides of the debate, but just because the V-chip is being adopted in Canada or the President of the United States of American has decided that it should be introduced in his country does not mean that it will work or deliver the goods. I am saying that it is dangerously misleading to suppose that such an introduction will have a major impact. I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that if people want to be able to buy the technology, and either retro-fit it to existing television sets or buy it in new television sets or videos, there should be nothing to stop that, but I am not sure why we need to legislate, because nothing prevents that from happening now.
That brings me to perhaps a more important point that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill did not spend much time discussing—who will rate the programmes? That will be an enormous bureaucratic exercise. Who will be responsible? Who will pay for it? I may be wrong, and I hope that I am not misreading the hon. Gentleman's intentions, but I understand that he wants to leave it to the broadcasters. Is that correct?

Mr. Alton: The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. Broadcasters classify programmes at the moment, and that is why there is a watershed at 9 o'clock. Broadcasters must determine whether a programmes is suitable for transmission before and after that time, so no extra work would be involved. The House must take action, because the broadcasters will have to tag material electronically to allow the V-chip to be of use. Even if everyone buys a V-chip, it will be of no use unless we require the broadcasters to tag programmes.

Dr. Cunningham: Exactly, but who would be responsible for tagging the programmes? The hon. Gentleman suggests that it should be left to the broadcasters, but there would be a natural tendency on their part to put the lowest possible rating on a programme they could get away with to ensure that more people had the opportunity to see it especially where advertising and commercial pressures were involved. The problem with selling these ideas separately is that all programmes must be vetted, tagged or rated before the V-chip can be effective.

Ms Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend know how live programmes could be classified, since nobody knows what will happen on them?

Dr. Cunningham: I suppose my hon. Friend has broadcasts such as that of Prime Minister's Question Time in mind. I do not know the answer to her question, and she has raised an important point.
I am not opposed to people having the technology, but I am doubtful about legislating on the matter and leaving it to the broadcasters. The Bill proposes a new Broadcasting Standards Commission; the Opposition support that proposal strongly. Far from requiring the Secretary of State to produce a White Paper or requiring other organisations to do more research, we should let the new body—which will be responsible for standards and complaints—have a look at the situation. It could then report to the House on what it believed to be the way forward.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Many hon. Members will agree with my right hon. Friend's remarks about technology, but does he agree that the general concerns in the nation and in the House are that there is too much violence on television, that too much of it is unnecessary and that too much of it is too violent? The Government recently initiated a change from one standards body to another, but it seems not to have done the trick. How can we be reassured by the creation of another body? Is not the recommendation in the new clause at least a move in the right direction?

Dr. Cunningham: I am not saying that research should not be done or that these matters are not important. I am saying that there are other ways in which to deal with them, and I have proposed some.
I am as concerned about censorship as I am about some of the other issues. I do not believe that it will be helpful or beneficial to a better understanding of life or an appreciation of art and culture if people can use technology to block out important parts of plays. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill referred to civil actions in the United States on the basis of films. It seems incredible to me. If film makers are to be the subject of civil litigation, why should that not apply also to books? If people can carry out alleged copycat actions after watching a film, why can they not do so after reading a book? "The Silence of the Lambs" was, after all, a book before it was a film. We are getting into dangerous ground.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred to Shakespeare. I am a lifelong supporter of Shakespeare, and I watch the Royal Shakespeare Company at every opportunity—particularly its season in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Are we saying that if Shakespeare's plays are made into films and put on television that people will V-chip the murder of Julius Caesar or the emergence of Coriolanus from the city after he has slaughtered people? Is that what we really want? That is a cause for concern.
If, through the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, we can take action along the lines that I hope the Secretary of State will announce, we can far more realistically—and, I hope, without raising false hopes—create the climate of opinion necessary to reduce some of the violence that we are talking about.
One of the things that worries me about the proposals relates to the current and agreed 9 o'clock watershed. Critics say that that watershed simply pushes violence on television into the early hours of the morning, but if proper parental control is exercised, children—the people about whom we are most concerned—ought to be in bed by 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning. The fact that they are


not tells us a lot about what is wrong with parental control. There is a real danger that the introduction of such technology will create the excuse—although it may not see it through—for the erosion of the 9 o'clock watershed. People might say that violent films can be broadcast earlier because they can be coded, allowing the V-chip to be used.

Mr. Dafis: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about technology, but he let slip a remark that he thought that something needed to be done about the level of violence on television. Do I take it that he regards the current situation as unsatisfactory?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes. I have said that more than once, and I am happy to confirm that that is my view. I share the concerns of the hon. Gentleman, and those of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, but I do not share their views on the potential solutions. Above all, I do not want to raise false hopes that, by making technology available, the problems can be solved and will go away.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: I sympathise strongly with the objectives of all the new clauses, and there is no doubt that there is widespread sympathy in the country for them. I wish to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) about the difference between television and other media. Television is not only in the home, we do not have to pay anything to watch it. It is not like hiring or buying a video, or going to the cinema—even if that costs as little as nine pence, as the hon. Gentleman said. No transaction is required; we are required only to turn it on. In addition, the number of hours of viewing per day and per week that numerous surveys show to be the average—particularly among the young—make television different. Also, we can video record and replay what we see on television.
It is not only the vulnerable who are at risk from violence, particularly the gratuitous and realistic violence that we see too much of. If such violence is continuous, almost anybody will be affected by it. However, I am far from convinced that any of the new clauses address the problem. A number of reasons why they fall short of meeting that objective have already been expressed, so I shall not repeat them.
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) that prime responsibility rests with broadcasters to moderate the amount and type of violence. Of course, there are important responsibilities for parents, teachers and government. I hope that I will hear from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the Government are concerned, are giving the issue attention, and will continue to do so.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I have rarely heard a new clause introduced in a way with which I felt such strong agreement than when the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) introduced the new clause. His description of the effects of television on children, his concern that that is in many ways uncharted territory, his description of the influence of film in encouraging imitative and mimicking behaviour and his concerns about inuring and desensitising children are all views with which I strongly agree.
8.45 pm
I shall explain to the House why it is not appropriate to support the new clauses, but I hope that I may offer some assurance—in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) suggested—that these are matters that the Government take extremely seriously, albeit we believe that we have set in place mechanisms, through the regulators and responsibilities on broadcasters, to ensure that there is further action.
I also commend the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who has consistently ensured that we pay proper attention to the effects of violence on young people. It is impressive that, in a Bill of such complexity, covering many areas, the House has chosen to speak at length on this subject. That in itself is a demonstration of the fact that hon. Members regard it with great importance. It may not be of great concern to the press and others, but we, as Members of Parliament, take it extremely seriously.
I was concerned by the comments of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill about the number of nine to 11-year-olds who have watched material that is quite unsuited to their age. Many would agree with his concern that so many of them have televisions in their own bedrooms, where they are able to watch unattended. Rosalind Miles spoke forcefully the other day about the dangers of children watching television in an isolated way. Children need an adult's interpretation of television. About nine years ago, I chaired a Dicey trust conference on the media and the rule of law. Many people from television, including Will Wyatt and others, were there, as well as Mary Whitehouse. At the time, it was fashionable to sneer at those who were concerned about the effects of violence on the young. Things have now changed substantially. At that stage, my worry was that about one third of children aged between five and eight had televisions in their bedrooms. That figure has now risen substantially.
As is often the case, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) and the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) challenged the presumption that we could tackle some of the issues in the way that is set out in the new clauses. That is a view that I hold. The only aspect that has not been properly covered is the fact that many people find so much violence frightening, whether or not it influences behaviour—I take the view that if the independent television companies make their money by persuading people that showing advertisements on television influences behaviour, it is extraordinary to say that other television programmes have no influence on their behaviour. Fear of violence is common in our society, although actual levels of violence are low. Anyone who is afraid of violence has that fear exacerbated by the amount of violence that they see on television.
As the right hon. Member for Copeland made clear, the Bill establishes the Broadcasting Standards Commission on an enhanced basis with greater authority. In addition, it will have the power to commission research in many areas, including on violence, which makes new clause 10 unnecessary as it already has that power. The BSC will have strengthened authority because, if the regulators and broadcasters fail to act on its recommendation, it will be required to follow the matter through and ensure that a statement is made saying what happened to the complaint in question.
Only recently, the House debated the new royal charter and agreement for the BBC. Again, that strengthens the authority and clarifies the responsibilities of the BBC's governors, as the regulators. Many hon. Members will commend the remarks of the new chairman, Sir Christopher Bland. When asked recently whether more needed to be done about violence, he said:
It is an area where all broadcasters need to be permanently vigilant. The burden of proof should lie with the producer who wants to include violence rather than the other way round. There's legitimate public concern.
In years gone by, we would not have had such a strong response from the chairman of the BBC. At present, its producers' guidelines are under review. One of the assurances that I can give the House is that, following today's debate and the strength of feeling and authority with which comments have been made, I intend to have further discussions with the chairmen of the BBC and the ITC, as the regulators, as well as the chairman of the new BSC so that I can be sure that the many points raised today are recognised and given the weight that they deserve.

Mr. Michael Lord: My right hon. Friend is sounding a little tougher and I am pleased to hear that. Does she appreciate, however, that members of the public who are watching this debate will probably feel exasperated? Most people now know that there is far too much violence on television and that it is doing a vast amount of damage. They look to this House to do something about it. If we do not accept the new clauses, which may have their faults, the public will expect action that will bite quickly, not long-term reviews, hoping, wishing and supporting. That will not do. Children are being damaged daily and we need much more dynamic action.

Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. Of course, some of the evidence is conflicting. I take a strong interest in the report to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby referred on violence, pornography, and the media. Many people of distinction contributed, not least Professor Andrew Sims, the professor of psychiatry at the university of Leeds. The fact that two thirds of the population said that they were concerned about levels of sex and violence shows that we must give that matter careful consideration. At the same time, however, the ITC reports that only 4 per cent. of the complaints that it receives concern violence, so there is a gap between the general perception that there is too much violence and the number of complaints received, which has fallen—it used to be nearly 6 per cent. and now it is down to 4 per cent.
Another piece of evidence that gives ground for encouragement was the research published last summer by Sheffield university, which showed that whereas in 1986 about 1.1 per cent. of material on television contained scenes of violence, it is now down to about 0.61 per cent. Also there has been a change in the public's tolerance. The public have become progressively more concerned.
Professor Philip Graham—formerly a child psychiatrist at Great Ormond Street and now president of the National Children's Bureau—said that although less than 1 per cent. of a football match is made up of goals, which is

indeed true, it is the goals that one remembers. Although the amount of violence may be diminishing, none of us should disregard the power of the volume that remains.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way because this is a non-party issue. In resisting new clause 7, is she saying that it is the Government's view that the amount of violence, however one measures it, is okay and that there is no statutory requirement for an aim to reduce it? If she is, surely that is a refusal to intervene, as is often the case with the Government, in matters that affect broadcasting as distinct from film, books and other publications.

Mrs. Bottomley: I do not think that new clause 7 is appropriate, because it undermines the authority already provided through the BSC—which has been given strengthened powers, and responsibility—and the regulators and broadcasters. The Bill gives the BSC authority to commission research on violence, and I have just reported one of the changes that has been made on the basis of information from Sheffield university. I believe that we need an annual statement on the amount of violence that features on television, and that is precisely what is now happening: the BBC, the ITC and the BSC are ensuring that material is made available annually enabling us to measure the effect year on year.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the watershed, a system adopted by the regulators as a guide to programme content. It is a further and effective means by which parents can make decisions about their children's viewing. I think that hon. Members throughout the House have re-emphasised that it is ultimately the responsibility of parents to ensure that children watch appropriate material.
As has been said time and again in the House, there is no room for complacency, but we should consider the new clauses in detail. I have explained why new clause 7 would undermine the present position; as for new clause 10, my Department is already reviewing the way in which the V-chip might work. We attended a seminar in which Dr. Arthur Pober spoke about the chip. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill could not be present, but I know that he was invited at relatively short notice. I shall visit the United States later in the year, and hope to talk not only to Dr. Pober but to those who are persuaded that they have overcome some of the perceived disadvantages. Indeed, I shall ensure that I talk to those people.
I do not need to rehearse some of the disadvantages that have already been identified by my colleagues—for instance, the danger that parents will have a television with a V-chip downstairs while the children will have one without a V-chip upstairs, and the danger that programme makers will believe that they are discharged from responsibility because a V-chip is in place. Many reservations have been expressed. I believe that they may all be surmountable, but that it would be inappropriate at this stage to make this the subject of primary legislation.

Ms Eagle: Will the Secretary of State answer a question that was asked earlier? If we opted for the V-chip, how would live programmes be classified?

Mrs. Bottomley: That is a good point. The question of classification, which was also raised by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), would cause considerable difficulty.

Mr. Alton: The Secretary of State should kill two points once and for all. First, I cannot think of an instance in which a V-chip would be relevant in the context of a live programme. We are talking primarily about films, many of them part of the Hollywood culture. Secondly, I think that the Secretary of State will accept that classification already takes place. She has just mentioned the watershed; how can we have a watershed unless someone is classifying the material?

Mrs. Bottomley: As the hon. Gentleman will know, viewers are increasingly warned about the likely content of a programme, and responsible broadcasters frequently say that a programme contains material that may be offensive to some. On the other hand, reservations have been expressed by Mary Whitehouse and the National Viewers and Listeners Association in relation to the danger of a perverse effect. Channel 4 tried to identify programmes of a particularly unsavoury character, only to find that the audiences for those programmes increased. I am afraid that the rating identified by the hon. Gentleman can have a perverse effect. I anticipate that, as the years go by, alerting and informing parents and the public will become more widespread, but the point is that it is not appropriate today to require that as a matter of primary legislation.
I hope that the House will feel that the Government take television violence seriously. The responsibility must be shared between regulators, broadcasters, parents and the public in general. I believe that the Bill provides enhanced powers for the safeguarding of standards and the protection of young people. While urging hon. Members not to support the new clauses, I assure them that I will make it my personal responsibility to follow up all the proposals contained in them with those directly responsible—and I am one of those directly responsible.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is interesting to note that massive changes affecting the whole structure of television and its ability to sustain quality are being passed in a more or less empty Chamber, but that, as soon as we come to an emotive issue such as violence, the Chamber begins to fill up. As the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) pointed out, it is interesting that it is violence this time rather than sex; but I suppose that we are all tired at the end of a long Session. Chamber rage has built up, and we are turning our attention to violence.
Most of the discussion of violence on television strikes me as irrelevant. Violence is part of life, and therefore it is part of television. The problem, when it comes to public perceptions, is the generalised denunciation of violence—violence in the news, for instance. It is sometimes necessary to show violence in news broadcasts. Had the first day of fighting on the Somme, 80 years ago today, been shown on television—20,000 were killed on that first day—would the British generals and Field Marshal Haig have been able to continue to sustain the deaths of wave upon wave of British youth under the machine guns' ragged rattle for months until the rains started in October or November? It might be necessary to show some violence in such circumstances. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said in his admirably balanced speech, it is sometimes necessary for artistic purposes—in performances of Shakespeare, for instance.
The case becomes enormously emotive and exaggerated, but there is an argument behind it. There is a problem that extends beyond the Chamber. The problem is that violence has become almost a quota of productions—part of a formula that is necessary for the making of a successful second-rate, or third-rate, television programme. The formula involves getting a big-name actor or attractive actress—preferably one who will take her clothes off—and to include a certain element of violence and a car chase. Violence thus becomes built into many of the factory-produced television programmes that we watch, produced by the great production house in California.
That means that the quota can increase, and people can bid higher and include more violence to maximise audiences. Unless we control it, we may end up with casts of thousands tortured, dying or murdered. If that becomes part of a culture—as it has on television—people will be inured to violence. It leads to an acceptance of violence as a natural response. The drip-by-drip conditioning to violence, which is a real danger, produces the kind of concern that we have heard expressed tonight. It is a conditioning process which we should be able to control and stop.
Two basic propositions need to be stated. The first is that we should have the power to decide for ourselves what comes into our houses. If the V-chip did that, it would serve a useful purpose. As part of that power, we should have the information on which to decide. That is what one of the new clauses in this group seeks to provide.
Secondly, we should have the power to penalise violence as a production feature and, therefore, reduce it and cause the producers of routine programmes for television to discount it. On both those grounds, there is a case for the new clauses before us today. I am not enthusiastic about them. New clause 7 is impractical. New clause 10 would not do what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said that it would. It asks for an inquiry, but if that inquiry produces the verdict that the V-chip is acceptable, all new television sets will include a V-chip. There is no choice in that.
The V-chip is a doubtful piece of equipment. It is almost science fiction. It is a pity that the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) is not here. He gets hooked on the science fiction of technology so he should be speaking on this matter. I am doubtful. There is general concern. For those reasons, and in the spirit of Blackburn—not as a reservoir dog but as a Straw dog—I am prepared to support the new clause.
New clause 10 merely asks for an inquiry, which we should have. New clause 11 merely asks for the provision of information. I will support them.

9 pm

Mr. Brooke: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, I believe that the concern of the nation on this subject is such that it reflects well on the House that the Chamber is fuller for this debate than it was for earlier debates. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) that Parliament cannot abdicate responsibility for these matters to researchers, although I would disagree with him if he were to argue that research was not helpful to our understanding of the problem.
I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) for sending me the report from which he quoted. I know that he will forgive me if I say that I found the report somewhat parti pris. My intervention in his speech was partly intended to make sure that the evidence was accurately quoted. I was worried because some of the evidence was somewhat dated. The New Zealand report that he quoted was drawn up in 1976—now 20 years ago. The children in the United States watching scenes of violence on television were studied at least five years ago. The report was written in such as way that one might have thought that Professor Comstock had done that research, although if one looks at the report closely, it is clear that his views are separate.
Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I have had some responsibility for these matters myself. I can remember bringing the broadcasters in. I am delighted that the monitors now report some evidence of a reduction in the incidence in violence.
We as a nation are good at spotting precipices and avoiding going over them. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) quoted Greek tragedy in his scholarly opening speech. It was a convention of Greek tragedy that violence took place off stage and that messengers reported the violent events as part of the drama.
As the exchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State underlined, common sense sees a link between these events, whatever that link may be. Personally, I hope that I do not take a Panglossian view, but I have confidence in the combined good sense of the nation. The nation clearly has a view on these matters. Broadcasters are just as capable as the rest of mankind of reading the nation's concern and the nation's evidence. It is important that we maintain up-to-date research, but no one in the nation will let us lose sight of the problem.

Ms Eagle: I wish to register a few notes of caution, particularly around the use of the phrase "too much violence on television", and to emphasise some of the problems with the V-chip that many hon. Members have brought to the attention of the House in this extremely important debate.
Every hon. Member is extremely concerned that we should properly debate the issues around violence, and whether violence on television is a cause of more violence in society; and come to some reasonable assessment.
Likewise, we also have a duty to remember that it is easy to blame television violence for the violence in society. There was a great deal of violence before broadcasting began, and there are all kinds of causes of violence. We do our debates no good at all if we try to put all the blame for the violence we see in society on the broadcasting media. It is a bit like blaming witches for crop failures, which used to be a favourite practice in mediaeval times. It was much easier to blame witches for crop failures than to blame the weather or an incompetent farmer.
That fact may explain the difference between the large percentage of public concern quoted by the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) from his research and the figures cited by the Secretary of State of the low number of complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Council about violence in television programmes.
How much easier to blame something appalling like the Dunblane tragedy on a television programme or the influence of television violence than to have to look into the nature of humanity and try to search for the reasons for that kind of tragedy within and among ourselves and the society we have created. How much easier to blame television violence than to take some difficult and hard-nosed decisions about the state of our society.
In future, I hope that some important decisions will be made about the banning of handguns, so that we minimise the chance of such a tragedy recurring. It is important that we should not just make a scapegoat of the broadcasting media and try to blame them for all our problems.
New clause 7 refers to
the aim of reducing the amount of violence depicted on television.
As hon. Members may have been able to gather from some of my earlier questions, the new clause makes no distinction between different kinds of violence or the context in which that violence is portrayed. Surely it is different to depict violence in television news when it is an actual event, albeit portrayed, we hope, responsibly.
The example cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about the Somme was ingenious and thought-provoking. One example much closer to home is the stark photograph from the Vietnam war of the young girl who had been burned by a napalm bomb, running naked down a road. That was one of the most startling s to be reproduced during the Vietnam war, and I believe that it led to much of the agitation that subsequently developed to get that war stopped. We must think carefully about how we portray actual events. We must be sensible about that.

Mr. Alton: I agree with the hon. Lady. Is she aware of the story of Malcom Muggeridge, when he was a broadcaster covering the Biafran war? He was filming an execution that was about to take place when the batteries on the camera ran low. The execution was stopped so that the batteries could be recharged in order to film the execution. Is it not the case that the medium itself often becomes more important than the events going on around us? We must therefore exercise responsibility when we discharge our functions, whether as broadcasters, parents or Government.

Ms Eagle: People should act not only responsibly, but with integrity, and it is up to the journalist to exercise that quality.
Had we not seen some of the shocking scenes of the famine in Ethiopia, we might not have been able to react as we did. We must admit that the broadcasting media are powerful, but we must be much more subtle in our response to their s, especially if they depict real events rather than fictional ones. When we talk about the quantity of violence on television, it is our absolute duty in a democracy to draw that distinction.
The second key distinction is that between fictional violence which is realistic and that which is clearly fantastic. What is its context? Some of it will be more damaging than others. I do not believe that it is acceptable to say that we must stop the portrayal of violence in all circumstances in a film or a play on television. We must take account of that.
New clause 7, which talks about the quantity of violence, makes no distinction between the context in which it is shown or how it is shown. Many people think that the


"Tom and Jerry" cartoons are appallingly violent, but most children can draw a distinction between cartoon-portrayed violence and the violence in "Rambo III".
Another emotive issue is the depiction of rape. Again, that depends on the context. The depiction of rape in "Straw Dogs" is far more offensive and potentially dangerous because of how was it was depicted than the depiction of rape in "The Accused". We must make some of these distinctions; we cannot talk about quantity in a gross way without appreciating the context in which these scenes are depicted.
We must also draw a distinction between adults and children. Children obviously need protection, especially when they are young; adults less so. New clause 7 takes little account of that. I shall not remind the House of the many valid criticisms of, and questions about, the V-chip's suitability. The main problem is that, even if we could get the V-chip into the 36 million existing television sets, it would give broadcasters a chance to say, "You have that system of classification, so we can produce what we want, and it is up to consumers to decide whether to watch it."
The results of introducing the V-chip on that scale, even if it were possible, would be the reverse of what those who are pushing the idea intend. It would be difficult to argue that it was necessary to have the V-chip and a series of extra systems of censorship. We either let people choose or we try collectively, as we are doing in this country with our very good regulation systems and classification systems, to control the problem as it should be controlled—with the maximum consensus.
We have talked a lot about children. It is incumbent on us, as a national Parliament, to mention the millions of households without children, which may want to have access to adult entertainment of a sort that we would not want children to watch. We must take account of the views and interests of those households.
New clause 11 is much more onerous than the hon. Member for Mossley Hill suggested, because all our deliberations on the Bill have been against the background that we are on the threshold of a massive extension of channels. We shall have 50 or 100 channels in the not too distant future. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that all those should be classified, however large their audience, for everything they do, including advertisements and live programmes? I have already mentioned the problems in trying to classify live output.
We must be pretty clear in our minds that the V-chip is not the way forward. We must support the institutions we have introduced, which on the whole do a pretty good job. I do not always agree with every decision by the British Board of Film Classification, but it does a pretty good job, as do all the other institutions that we have created to try to recognise the importance of the broadcasting media and of influencing people, and to establish a reasonable, consensual way through some of those difficult problems.
I oppose all the new clauses, because they add nothing to the institutions as they have developed, but threaten to undermine them.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I agree with the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) up to a

point, but only up to a point, because in this debate we have failed adequately to confront the problem of violence. With great respect to those who eloquently supported their new clauses, they are only touching the periphery; they are dancing around the edges of a significant social problem.
The hon. Member for Wallasey talks about society and television. Television is a central aspect of our society, and there is a real feeling among many thinking people in this country that, in the past decade or more, we have witnessed the progressive erosion of childhood innocence, largely at the hands of television.
It is pointless to talk at length about books and television. We choose books to buy to read, to take down from the shelves. Television is there in almost every home in the land, is watched indiscriminately in many homes, and does a great deal of damage—for a simple reason. The aim of everyone who utters, as I am seeking to utter now, is to influence. Why do people write books? Why do they write plays? Why do they produce television programmes? The answer is: to influence people.
Shakespeare has been quoted this evening. The difference with him is that, when people go to a Shakespeare play, they are deeply moved, and they come away with a clear message and a clear moral. The difficulty with so much modern television is that it is thoroughly amoral; there is no sense of right or wrong, of good or evil. But there is often a gratuitous depiction of violence and an explicit description of sex. All people—young people particularly—are vulnerable to these messages, and they are manipulated by them.
9.15 pm
The implicit message of this Bill is that television is set to proliferate—the advent of digital, the arrival of more and more channels, and so on. More, in my view, will not mean better, however. It will mean a proliferation of the tawdry—if we are not careful.
I do not for a moment impugn my right hon. Friend's sincerity or motives when she says that she takes these issues seriously—I am sure she does—but she must take them with more seriousness. She said that she would be talking to the new chairman of the BBC and others. I urge her to have them in very soon after we have completed our deliberations on this Bill. She must tell them that, although they are doing their best, it is not good enough. There is too much gratuitous violence on our televisions, and there will be more.
I do not like new clause 7, because it makes the Secretary of State into the grand censor. I believe that censorship is necessary, but that it should be done by the new standards body, the BSC. I want it to behave with a robustness that has been singularly lacking hitherto in those whose duty it is to examine and control. It should not be afraid of controlling.
In a way, there is no worse crime against humanity than the destruction of childhood innocence. It must be stopped. I believe that the depiction of violence in news broadcasting can be a positive good when it shows evil men doing terrible things to others. I remember, as a small child, being in a cinema when the first newsreel of Belsen was shown. My mother's instinctive reaction was to put her hands over my eyes, but my father said, "No, let him see it." 1 have never forgotten it, just as the young children


who saw the terrible scenes from Bosnia will never forget them. Nor should they. The evil that man can do to man is terrible, and we should know about it.
What we are really discussing today, however, is fictional, gratuitous violence without a moral. The hon. Member for Wallasey talked of the famous photograph from Vietnam, and said that it was very influential. I agree; but why? Because people saw something evil and terrible happening, and reacted against it.
So I accept my right hon. Friend's sincerity of purpose, but I want a greater firmness of purpose. I want her to give an unequivocal message to those with this enormous power over our lives—those who produce and control the production of our programmes. It is the very future of our nation that is in their hands, because they have the chance to ensure that our children see what is good, and know the difference between what is good and what is evil.

Ms Lynne: We are not saying that our new clauses will be the panacea for all ills. It was interesting that not one hon. Member who spoke in the debate said that there was not too much violence on television. We are proposing minor measures—they are small measures. The Secretary of State said that she is looking into research about the V-chip—that is all we are asking for; that is all new clause 10 asks for. We are not saying that the V-chip should be put into all television sets and that everyone has to use it—we are saying that parents should have the choice to use the V-chip or not to use the V-chip.
As far as classification is concerned, the 9 o'clock watershed already exists. The producers already have to classify, so it would not cause a great deal more work. The right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) said that he spoke about this 12 years ago. What has happened? We are still seeing violence—the diet of violence is getting worse and worse on our television screens and in films.
Many years ago, when I first started acting, we did not have this sort of violence or this portrayal of violence—the skills and the techniques were not there. As in Shakespeare, a messenger would come on to say that someone had been killed, and there might have been a little bit of violence. We did not have the technical skills that we have today.
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) referred to live television. Few producers of drama programmes will produce live drama programmes: their joy is in the editing of the programmes—that is where we get gratuitous violence, where we get the cutaway shots, where we see a head come off a body or where we see someone have their arms or legs cut off. That is the sort of gratuitous violence we see on television at the moment.
These measures are not great measures, and we are not saying that they are a panacea. However, they are measures that we want to see accepted in the Bill. There are many other measures—such as those relating to gun licensing—that we can talk about on other Bills at a later stage. Tonight, we are asking hon. Members to vote for these small new clauses. They are a step in the right direction. I ask the Secretary of State whether Government Members will have a free vote on these new clauses—all Opposition Members will have a free vote. I hope that some Government Members will join us in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Dafis: There is a growing consensus that there is too much violence on television, and that something must be done about it. That view is held in the country, among experts and among Members of Parliament—and I have been impressed by that. Hon. Members have said that there is far too much violence on television and that it is doing a huge amount of damage. Something has to be done.
I will not go into whether we can establish a direct connection between depictions of violence and specific crimes—although I dare say it happens. We have a constant diet of violent scenes—surely it coarsens the grain of society and increases the amount of low-level violence, such as threatening behaviour. I believe that there is also a connection in relation to the most horrific crimes.
The V-chip issue has been carefully and eloquently described, and I am not competent to consider the technical aspects of it. Parents who wish to prevent their unsupervised children from being exposed to pernicious material should have the opportunity to do so—I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) accept that principle.
I emphasise that my amendment is modest—it is not a huge imposition. It asks the Secretary of State to draw up a plan to reduce the amount of violence. Surely that can be done without sacrificing the need for realism and the need to depict violence to the extent that is appropriate. We can prevent the depiction of violence in newsreels. We are discussing reducing the quantity of violence that is shown on television—that is of the essence.
I welcome the Secretary of State's acknowledgment of the problem, and I am glad to hear that there will be an annual review, discussions with regulators and so on. Tonight we have an opportunity to put a useful process in motion without causing a huge dislocation of existing provisions, and without creating major difficulties for the Government. That is what the amendments do.
In the process, we shall send a powerful message to the Government—Conservative Members have heard it already—to the broadcasters and to the public. Tonight the Chamber has grappled with a serious problem in society, and the debate has been most impressive. We should take the opportunity to send that welcome message, so I shall press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 352.

Division No. 160]
[9.25 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Canavan, Dennis


Alton, David
Cann, Jamie


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Chidgey, David


Barnes, Harry
Chisholm, Malcolm


Battle, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Beggs, Roy
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cohen, Harry


Blunkett, David
Connarty, Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Corston, Jean


Byers, Stephen
Cox, Tom


Callaghan, Jim
Cummings, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Cunningham, Roseanna


Campbell-Savours, D N
Dafis, Cynog






Davies, Chris (L'Boro &amp; S'worth)
Macdonald, Calum


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McKelvey, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
McNamara, Kevin


Dixon, Don
MacShane, Denis


Donohoe, Brian H
Madden, Max


Eastham, Ken
Maddock, Diana


Etherington, Bill
Mahon, Alice


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Marek, Dr John


Fatchett, Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Meale, Alan


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Michael, Alun


Foster, Don (Bath)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fyfe, Maria
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Galloway, George
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Gapes, Mike
Morley, Elliot


Garrett, John
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


George, Bruce
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gerrard, Neil
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mullin, Chris


Godsiff, Roger
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Hara, Edward


Gordon, Mildred
Pike, Peter L


Graham, Thomas
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Radice, Giles


Grocott, Bruce
Randall, Stuart


Hanson, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Hardy, Peter
Rogers, Allan


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Hinchliffe, David
Rowlands, Ted


Hodge, Margaret
Sheerman, Barry


Hoey, Kate
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Home Robertson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Hood, Jimmy
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Steinberg, Gerry


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Illsley, Eric
Trickett, Jon


Jamieson, David
Tyler, Paul


Janner, Greville
Wallace, James


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Walley, Joan


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Wareing, Robert N


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Wicks, Malcolm


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Keen, Alan
Wise, Audrey


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&amp;S)
Worthington, Tony


Khabra, Piara S
Wray, Jimmy


Kirkwood, Archy
Wright, Dr Tony


Lewis, Terry



Litherland, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Livingstone, Ken
Ms Liz Lynne and Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.


McAllion, John





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Barron, Kevin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bates, Michael


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Batiste, Spencer


Alexander, Richard
Bayley, Hugh


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bellingham, Henry


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bendall, Vivian


Amess, David
Bennett, Andrew F


Arbuthnot, James
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashby, David
Berry, Roger


Ashton, Joe
Betts, Clive


Aspinwall, Jack
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Body, Sir Richard


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Booth, Hartley


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Boswell, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia





Bowden, Sir Andrew
Fishburn, Dudley


Bowis, John
Forman, Nigel


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forth, Eric


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bright, Sir Graham
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
French, Douglas


Brown, M (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Fry, Sir Peter


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Galbraith, Sam


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gale, Roger


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Gallie, Phil


Budgen, Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Burns, Simon
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Burt, Alistair
Garnier, Edward


Butcher, John
Gill, Christopher


Butler, Peter
Gillan, Cheryl


Butterfill, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Caborn, Richard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gorst, Sir John


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Cash, William
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Churchill, Mr
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clapham, Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clappison, James
Gunnell, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Coe, Sebastian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coffey, Ann
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Colvin, Michael
Hannam, Sir John


Congdon, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Conway, Derek
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hawkins, Nick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hawksley, Warren


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hayes, Jerry


Corbett, Robin
Heald, Oliver


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Couchman, James
Henderson, Doug


Cran, James
Hendry, Charles


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hicks, Sir Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Dalyell, Tam
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Darling, Alistair
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Davidson, Ian
Hoon, Geoffrey


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Horam, John


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Day, Stephen
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Denham, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Devlin, Tim
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Dover, Den
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Duncan, Alan
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Hunter, Andrew


Dunn, Bob
Hutton, John


Durant, Sir Anthony
Ingram, Adam


Dykes, Hugh
Jack, Michael


Eagle, Ms Angela
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Elletson, Harold
Jenkin, Bernard


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Jessel, Toby


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Evennett, David
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Faber, David
Key, Robert


Fabricant, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Kirkhope, Timothy


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)






Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Rathbone, Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Knox, Sir David
Richards, Rod


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Riddick, Graham


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Robathan, Andrew


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Robertson, Fiaymond (Ab'd'n S)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Legg, Barry
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Leigh, Edward
Rooker, Jeff


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Rooney, Terry


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Lidington, David
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sackville, Tom


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Luff, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


McFall, John
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacKay, Andrew
Shersby, Sir Michael


Mackinlay, Andrew
Simpson, Alan


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Sims, Sir Roger


McLeish, Henry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Skinner, Dennis


Madel, Sir David
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Malone, Gerald
Soames, Nicholas


Mans, Keith
Spellar, John


Marland, Paul
Spencer, Sir Derek


Marlow, Tony
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spink, Dr Robert


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sproat, Iain


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mates, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Steen, Anthony


Maxton, John
Stephen, Michael


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Merchant, Piers
Streeter, Gary


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sumberg, David


Mills, Iain
Sweeney, Walter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sykes, John


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Thomason, Roy


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Touhig, Don


Norris, Steve
Townend, John (Bridlington)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


O'Neill, Martin
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trend, Michael


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Trotter, Neville


Ottaway, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Paice, James
Viggers, Peter


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Patten, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Pendry, Tom
Ward, John


Pickles, Eric
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waterson, Nigel


Porter, David (Waveney)
Watts, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Powell, William (Corby)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Primarolo, Dawn
Whitney, Ray





Whittingdale, John
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Ann
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Willetts, David
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin and Mr. Roger Knapman.


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)



Wood, Timothy

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 10

DUTY OF THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS COMMISSION (BSC) TO CARRY OUT RESEARCH INTO USE OF 'V' CHIP TO REGULATE PORTRAYAL OF VIOLENCE ON TELEVISION

`.—It shall be the duty of the BSC to carry out research into the effects on viewers of the level and frequency of s of violence contained in television programmes and into the feasibility and desirability of requiring the installation in all new television sets of an electronic device designed, subject to an override power, automatically to block the reception of programmes whose violent content falls within a predetermined classification as being unsuitable for viewing by persons under the age of eighteen.'.—[Mr. Alton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion and Question put,That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 376.

Division No. 161]
[9.40 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Godsiff, Roger


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gordon, Mildred


Barnes, Harry
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Battle, John
Grocott, Bruce


Beggs, Roy
Hardy, Peter


Blunkett, David
Hinchliffe, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hoey, Kate


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Home Robertson, John


Byers, Stephen
Hood, Jimmy


Callaghan, Jim
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Canavan, Dennis
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Chidgey, David
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Clelland, David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Connarty, Michael
Jowell, Tessa


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Charles (Ross C &amp; S)


Corston, Jean
Khabra, Piara S


Cox, Tom
Kirkwood, Archy


Cummings, John
Livingstone, Ken


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dafis, Cynog
McAllion, John


Davidson, Ian
McFall, John


Davies, Chris (L'Boro &amp; S'worth)
McNamara, Kevin


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
MacShane, Denis


Dixon, Don
McWilliam, John


Donohoe, Brian H
Maddock, Diana


Etherington, Bill
Mahon, Alice


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marek, Dr John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Galloway, George
Morley, Elliot


Garrett, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)






Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


O'Hara, Edward
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dennis


Pike, Peter L
Tyler, Paul


Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)
Wallace, James


Randall, Stuart
Walley, Joan


Rogers, Allan
Wareing, Robert N


Rooker, Jeff
Wicks, Malcolm


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Salmond, Alex
Wise, Audrey


Short, Clare
Worthington, Tony


Skinner, Dennis
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wright, Dr Tony


Spellar, John



Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steinberg, Gerry
Ms Liz Lynne and Mr. Frank Cook.


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Butler, Peter


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butterfill, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caborn, Richard


Alexander, Richard
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Allen, Graham
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Amess, David
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carttiss, Michael


Armstrong, Hilary
Cash, William


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Ashby, David
Churchill, Mr


Ashton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Clappison, James


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Coffey, Ann


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cohen, Harry


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Colvin, Michael


Barron, Kevin
Congdon, David


Bates, Michael
Conway, Derek


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bayley, Hugh
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bellingham, Henry
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bendall, Vivian
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Couchman, James


Bennett, Andrew F
Cran, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'hire)


Bermingham, Gerald
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Berry, Roger
Dalyell, Tam


Betts, Clive
Darling, Alistair


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Body, Sir Richard
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Day, Stephen


Booth, Hartley
Denham, John


Boswell, Tim
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Keith
Duncan, Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Bright Sir Graham
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Brown, M (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Browning, Mrs Angela
Elletson, Harold


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Butcher, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)





Evennett, David
Illsley, Eric


Faber, David
Ingram, Adam


Fabricant, Michael
Jack, Michael


Fatchett, Derek
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Janner, Greville


Fishburn, Dudley
Jenkin, Bernard


Flynn, Paul
Jessel, Toby


Forman, Nigel
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Forth, Eric
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Foulkes, George
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Keen, Alan


French, Douglas
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Fry, Sir Peter
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Fyfe, Maria
Key, Robert


Galbraith, Sam
King, Rt Hon Tom


Gale, Roger
Kirkhope, Timothy


Gallie, Phil
Knapman, Roger


Gapes, Mike
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Gardiner, Sir George
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Knight Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Garnier, Edward
Knox, Sir David


George, Bruce
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Gerrard, Neil
Lait. Mrs Jacqui


Gill, Christopher
Lamont Rt Hon Norman


Gillan, Cheryl
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Legg, Barry


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Leigh, Edward


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Gorst, Sir John
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Graham, Thomas
Lewis, Terry


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Lidington, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Lord, Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Luff, Peter


Gunnell, John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Hague, Rt Hon William
Macdonald, Calum


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hampson, Dr Keith
MacKay, Andrew


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
McKelvey, William


Hannam, Sir John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hanson, David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Harman, Ms Harriet
McLeish, Henry


Harvey, Nick
McLoughlin, Patrick


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Hawkins, Nick
Madden, Max


Hawksley, Warren
Madel, Sir David


Hayes, Jerry
Maitland, Lady Olga


Heald, Oliver
Malone, Gerald


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Mans, Keith


Hendry, Charles
Marland, Paul


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Marlow, Tony


Hicks, Sir Robert
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Mates, Michael


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Hoon, Geoffrey
Maxton, John


Horam, John
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Meale, Alan


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Merchant, Piers


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mills, Iain


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Hunter, Andrew
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hutton, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis






Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe,)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mudie, George
Snape, Peter


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Soames, Nicholas


Nelson, Anthony
Spencer, Sir Derek


Neubert, Sir Michael
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Nicholls, Patrick
Spink, Dr Robert


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sproat, Iain


Norris, Steve
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Olner, Bill
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


O'Neill, Martin
Stephen, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Stewart, Allan


Page, Richard
Streeter, Gary


Paice, James
Sumberg, David


Parry, Robert
Sweeney, Walter


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Sykes, John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Pope, Greg
Thomason, Roy


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Powell, William (Corby)
Thurnham, Peter


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Primarolo, Dawn
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Radice, Giles
Tracey, Richard


Rathbone, Tim
Trend, Michael


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Trickett, Jon


Richards, Rod
Trotter, Neville


Riddick, Graham
Twinn, Dr Ian


Robathan, Andrew
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Viggers, Peter


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Walden, George


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Waller, Gary


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Ward, John


Rooney, Terry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Waterson, Nigel


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Watts, John


Sackville, Tom
Wells, Bowen


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Scott, Sir Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, David (Dover)
Whittingdale, John


Sheerman, Barry
Widdecombe, Ann


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wilkinson, John


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Willetts, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wood, Timothy


Shersby, Sir Michael
Yeo, Tim


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Simpson, Alan



Sims, Sir Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Sebastian Coe.


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 12

ESTABLISHMENT AND ANNUAL REVIEW BY ORDER OF LIST OF PROTECTED SPORTING EVENTS

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, and thereafter annually, carry out a review of those sporting events listed in accordance with section 91 of this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State shall publish the results of each review carried out under subsection (1) above in such manner as he considers appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State shall make an order specifying those events to be included in the list for the 12 months following each review under subsection (1).

(4) Subject to subsection (5) below an order under subsection (3) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5) An order under subsection (3) which has the effect of removing an event from the list may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.—[Dr. John Cunningham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 15—Powers of the Secretary of State in relation to the sale of television rights—
'.—(1) If the Secretary of State concludes that the sale of the exclusive rights to televise all or part of any sporting or other event is not in the national interest, he may by order determine that any contract entered into for that purpose shall be void.
(2) An order under subsection (I) above may state, for the purposes of any subsequent contract, which part or parts of that event may be the subject of the sale of exclusive rights as mentioned in subsection (1).
(3) Before making an order under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult the owner of the rights to televise the event, relevant broadcasting organisations and anyone else as he determines.
(4) No order under subsection (1) may be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.'.
New schedule 1—Listed Events—
.—The list of events mentioned in section 91 of this Act is as follows, namely:—

Association Football

—the F.I.F.A. World Cup Finals (that is to say all stages of the tournament after the qualifying stages)

—the F.A. Cup Final

—the Scottish F. A. Cup Final

Lawn Tennis

—the Wimbledon Finals

The Olympic Games

Horse Racing

—the Derby

—the Grand National

Cricket

—Test Matches played in the United Kingdom

Rugby Union

—matches in the Five Nations Championship involving England, France, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.'.

And the following amendment thereto: (a), at end add—
`—the Welsh Rugby Union Cup Final'.

Amendment No. 1, in clause 91, page 86, line 35, leave out from 'in' to 'subsection' in line 38 and insert—
`the list contained in Schedule (Listed events) to this Act.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument vary the list of events referred to in subsection (1) above, but no such statutory instrument shall be made unless a draft of it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.


(2A) The power referred to in subsection (1) above to vary the list of events shall include the power to add an event to, or delete an event from, the list, or to substitute one event for another.
(2B) The Secretary of State shall not exercise the power conferred by'.

Amendment No. 2, in page 86, line 47, after 'list', insert
'contained in Schedule (Listed events) to this Act.'.

Amendment No. 3, in page 87, leave out lines 1 to 7.

Amendment No. 129, in page 87, leave out lines 10 to 15.

Amendment No. 4, in page 87, line 14, leave out `(2)' and insert '(2B)'

Amendment No. 5, in page 87, leave out lines 16 to 19.

Amendment No. 130, in clause 93, page 87, line 35,, leave out
'the commencement of this section'

and insert '19th March 1996'.

Dr. Cunningham: New clauses 12 and 15 and the associated amendments Nos. 129 and 130 refer to the listed sporting events that were the subject of considerable debate and not a little controversy not only in the other place but across the country after the publication of the Bill. The Government suffered their first defeat on the Bill in Committee in another place on the list of sporting or other events that should not be shown exclusively on pay-per-view or subscription television—in other words, events that should be reserved also for terrestrial television broadcasting.
The Government amendments were tabled at the 11th hour in the House of Lords and rightly came in for great scrutiny in Committee. Our concern now is about the process by which a sport could become listed or could be removed from the list, since we do not take the view that the existing list should remain in its present form for all time. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State claimed to have been pleased that the House of Lords overturned the Government's wishes on the matter. If we accept—as she did then—that these events are of national importance, we must also accept that they should be subject to a national debate on the future merits or demerits of listing them.
New clause 12 would make the list the property of Parliament, and not exclusively that of the Secretary of State. The new clause would impose a duty to review the list annually and to place it in the form of a statutory instrument before the House of Commons. Nothing of that nature happens at present. As the proposal has been controversial—not only here, but among sportsmen and women, broadcasters and fans—many people have argued that the list should have a number of other events added to it immediately. The five nations rugby championship has been suggested—[HoN. MEMBERS: "The four nations rugby championship, now."] Perhaps that is right. The Ryder cup golf tournament is another example.
New schedule 1 and its associated amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) would add the five nations tournament to the list, but we have been advised that there is a serious problem with that addition to the list, and with the addition of the five nations championship to the Bill. Indeed, our advice from the Clerks is that this schedule would make the Bill hybrid, thus placing the entire Bill

in jeopardy. In many respects, that might be appealing to Opposition Members but, frankly, that is not a road down which we wish to travel. There are far too many important provisions in the Bill that we do not want to be lost, and we cannot support that approach.
New clause 15 gives the Secretary of State the opportunity to intervene in these events. We have argued for some time that the list should be reviewed and that the Secretary of State and Parliament should be allowed to add further events, if that is the decision. Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 would ensure that the full effect of listed status would apply to any event added to the list from the time the Government amendments were added to the Bill. In that way, it would be perfectly feasible for this or any future Government to add an event or events—including the four or five nations rugby championship—to the list.
For that matter, any other event that it is decided should be protected for terrestrial television broadcasting—it may not necessarily be a sporting event—may be added. One thinks of millennium celebrations, or other events over which there could be a clash of interests in deciding whether they should be exclusively broadcast or more generally available. That could be done if it was thought appropriate and practicable, and if the Secretary of State so recommended and the House agreed. That process would also give sports' governing bodies and broadcasters, in addition to the House and hon. Members, sports fans and organisations, the opportunity to contribute to the debate and discussions before any change in the listed events took place. I commend the new clause to the House.

Sir Peter Fry: I find considerable sympathy with the Opposition new clause because the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) mentioned the sport that is dearest to my heart—rugby union football. In the past few weeks, I have discussed the decision of the English Rugby Football Union with a considerable number of rugby players and officials, particularly from the junior clubs.
It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Broadcasting Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Question agreed to.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Sir Peter Fry: There is widespread concern that the recent agreement between the Rugby Football Union and Sky Television not only has endangered the future of the five nations championship but will deprive the majority of people in this country of the opportunity to see home internationals when they are being played, by removing them from their television screens.
I regard that as exceedingly unfortunate after a period when rugby football was more of a minority sport than it is today. It has made great strides in recent years, has attracted many more players, especially youngsters, and has spread across all class barriers. It has had a wider and ever more enthusiastic audience. In effect, the governing body of rugby football says, "We are not too worried


about all the people who want to watch—after all, only a privileged few can get tickets to Twickenham when home internationals are played—but we are concerned about making the maximum amount of money out of a deal with Sky Television."
It was not me who described the august members of the Rugby Football Union as a "collection of old farts". I suggest that a collection of money grabbers would be a more appropriate description today than that by the former England captain. For a sport that was amateur for so long to make such a transformation and do the deal with Mr. Murdoch's empire that it has done is certainly to be deplored, and it is deplored by me and by the vast majority of rugby supporters.

Mr. Lord: My hon. Friend knows that I share his concern about this matter and I agree with every word he has said. Is not the great tragedy the fact that, although the Rugby Football Union says that the money it is getting is for the benefit of the sport as a whole, by turning it into a professional sport, which has meant that every senior club wants £1 million a year just to run the club and pay the players, the RFU has driven the deals with television companies? That is not to the long-term benefit of the sport—particularly that of the junior clubs—but is all to do with money grabbing at the highest possible level.

Sir Peter Fry: That was a good intervention and I agree with my hon. Friend, but I would go further. We have already seen the rift that has developed between the big clubs and the rest of the people who play rugby. I deplore that rift. The inevitable question is, as the Rugby Football Union picks the English team and the big clubs need the union, who is going to play for England in home internationals?
I must make it clear that I do not object to the best players in the sport receiving some remuneration. We have to accept that and move with the times. What I do object to is the Rugby Football Union saying, "Regardless of what anyone thinks, you're going to have to pay £24 a month to whoever it is to see home internationals at the time of the kick-off." That is a form of blackmail to a great many members of the public and it is a blow to the prestige of rugby union football. That is why I have sympathy with the new clauses and amendments.
I do not think that the measures go far enough, however. I would have liked the new schedule tabled by my friend the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes)—I call him my friend because we have paired in the House for many years—to be accepted. For many years, people felt certain that the five nations championship was safe, and that we could not find ourselves in the position in which we find ourselves today. Now, unfortunately, we are being told that it will be difficult to turn the clock back. It is not just a question of whether the championship will be televised; it is a question of whether it will ever be played again after the next season. Like many others, I thought that the august members of the rugby union committee would be able to compromise and find common ground with the other home unions. I was astonished that, following the agreement that was reached, there was a danger that the championship could well end.
I hope that the message that tonight's debate will send is that what has happened is not in the best interests of rugby union football, and that the House wants the

championship to continue. If the threat of considerable future inconvenience for any union that does a deal with the television company that will take the sport off the screen causes the rugby unions to compromise and decide that the five nations championship is more important than one individual union in this country, I believe that our debate will have been worth while. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able at least to persuade me not to vote for the new clauses and amendments; at present, I would find it very difficult to vote against them.

Mr. Roy Hughes: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry), some of whose sentiments I echo
.
I find the term "listed events" rather too innocuous: I prefer to think of events such as the World cup, the FA cup final, the Scottish cup final, the Derby, the Grand National, test cricket in this country and, of course, Wimbledon as the jewels of sport.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) pointed out that, if my new schedule were passed, the Bill would be in danger of becoming a hybrid. Let me emphasise that what we are asking for, as rugby enthusiasts, is parity. We want the five nations championship to continue to be seen by millions of people throughout the country. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dalis) proposes to amend the new schedule to include the Welsh rugby union cup final, and I do not disagree with that.

Dr. John Cunningham: We share my hon. Friend's objectives; that is not the problem. The problem is that., if the new schedule is added to the Bill, we are advised that it will put the whole legislation in jeopardy. If that happened, my hon. Friend would not get what he wanted. Our amendments do what he wants, while retaining the Bill intact. That is why it is advisable to support our amendments and not press the new schedule to a vote.

Mr. Hughes: I cannot for the life of me understand why the five nations championship was not included in the Bill in the other place.
I declare an interest. Two or three years ago, several hon. Members got together and formed an all-party rugby union group. I am not exactly declaring an interest, because there is certainly no financial remuneration in the arrangement, but I have followed the sport closely for the past 50 years.
Rugby union has become very much a national sport. Indeed, it has developed into an international sport. Let us consider some of the issues. The tickets for an international match could normally be sold many times over. Unfortunately, many tickets are still sucked into the black market and sold at exorbitant prices.
It is expensive to go to an international today. According to the official statistics which I was reading only last week, Wales is now just about the most deprived region of the United Kingdom. Therefore, many people such as redundant mineworkers and steelworkers who would normally wish to go to internationals simply cannot afford to go.
Other people—some elderly, some infirm—who have great love for the game feel that going to an international match, with a big crowd, is just too physically exacting.


All those categories of people—those who cannot get tickets, those who find internationals too expensive and those who find that they are past going to internationals—watch the match on their television screen in the cosiness of their own parlour. That has been the case up to now.
I have no wish to interfere with the administration of rugby. That is a matter for the responsible officials of the game. However, as Members of Parliament we cannot help but be concerned if our constituents will be deprived of an amenity that they have enjoyed for so long. The so-called highlights of the match two hours afterwards are a very poor substitute for the real thing. Nevertheless, I appreciate the difficulties in which the rugby authorities find themselves, particularly with the advent of professionalism. Personally, I regret the fact that the game has gone that way, but there it is. As the hon. Member for Central Suffolk (Mr. Lord) said, each major club says that it needs £1 million to run its team for just one season.
Of course the rugby unions have to be concerned about the future development of the game. Naturally, therefore, they must consider the moneys coming into it, but they need to consider also what effect Mr. Murdoch might have on the game. How much control would he want to exercise? We have already seen what has happened with rugby league. It has been transferred arbitrarily manner to the summer. I understand that attendances at matches have dropped substantially.
Today, of course, the running of various sports is all to do with sponsorship. We have seen the ridiculous outfits that our cricketers wear on a Sunday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] How daft they look.
The Broadcasting Bill is seen as a measure that will prevent ordinary people from enjoying the sport that they love. So many families just cannot afford a satellite dish outside their home. One of my constituents, Mr. Ron Stewart of Caldicot, wrote a letter to the Western Mail a couple of weeks ago in which he said that an "ordinary Joe", as he called himself, could not afford a satellite dish, but he was still very keen on rugby. Mr. Stewart loves to see the internationals and he is afraid that he will be deprived of that particular pleasure.
I say to the Government and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who speaks for the Opposition, that they must find some way to ensure that ordinary people can still see rugby internationals as they have done in the past. If not, I believe that the changes envisaged will have a detrimental effect on the future of the game, because ordinary people will lose interest in it.

Sir Hector Monro: I agree very much with the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who indirectly moved his amendments to the new clause.
I should declare an interest as one who was a member of the Scottish Rugby Union committee for some 20 years. I therefore know a little about the discussions that have gone on every few years on the renewal of the television franchise. That is why I am particularly disappointed at what the Rugby Football Union has done this year by giving a monopoly to Sky Television. It is no use to say, "Well, that is fine. You can see the highlights or even a recording of the match two hours later". Once

one knows the result of a game, half the pleasure of watching it has gone. That is a very poor answer to the attitude of the RFU.
I know that the RFU feels that it is up to it to obtain the most money possible from television to put back into the game. One appreciates that the four home unions have spent huge amounts of money developing their stadiums. We now have fine grounds in the four home countries, and in Paris as well. At the same time, however, the game has had to face a huge increase in the payments to players, and, of course, the cost of seats to the public has gone up dramatically. That makes it all the more important for the man in the street to have the opportunity to see rugby on terrestrial as well as Sky Television.
I am quite a believer in Sky. I enjoy watching golf at the weekends and rugby football from the southern hemisphere and South Africa. That is all good and we have to take our hats off to the Sky producers for the way in which they have enhanced the programmes over the years to an extremely high standard. That still does not remove from the argument the point made so strongly by the hon. Member for Newport, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) that those who pay their television licences—it is a pretty high sum now—are entitled to see some top sport some of the time. Were they to lose live coverage of the entire five nations championship, they would feel seriously disadvantaged.
Most of the governing bodies of the international sports that are on the preferred list accept that and behave extremely competently and fairly to their viewers, and, of course, that is absolutely right. To me it is extremely serious that the RFU is prepared to put the five nations championship at grave risk.
The Scottish Rugby Union, the Welsh Rugby Union—as a result of a decision yesterday—and the Irish RFU are serious. They will not play England in the so-called five nations championship if the Sky Television franchise as proposed by England goes ahead. They will look forward to playing a four nations championship, probably of an extremely high standard, bringing excitement and enjoyment to all concerned but there will not be television broadcasts from Twickenham of England playing against Scotland, Wales or Ireland. That would be a sad loss to everyone in the country.
We must try to persuade the RFU that money is not everything and we must try to find a compromise. It is very sad, when the four home unions and France have been the closest of colleagues for at least 100 years, that one country wishes to opt out and be particularly difficult when it comes to giving the viewers of this country what they want to see, while ploughing a huge amount of money back into the game, whether the money comes from the BBC or elsewhere.
We must try to help the RFU off a hook that it has put itself on, and to get back to running a five nations championship. It is no use England thinking that it can have fun and games playing Italy or Romania in show games at Twickenham and perhaps playing a touring side. We must look at the touring sides too. Those from the southern hemisphere—the three main countries that we wish to see are New Zealand, Australia and South Africa—will need to negotiate television arrangements with the four home unions. If England carries on as it is, it will have great difficulty in reaching a favourable agreement with the other countries. Sadly, we are reaching an impasse.
Putting the five home unions on to the approved or special list is not the way forward. It is far more important that we retain the status quo with a degree of flexibility so that the rugby unions, if they wish, can have part Sky, part terrestrial television for other games in the five home unions. It would be wrong to reduce their opportunity for negotiation by putting them on to the preferred list.
The House should send the RFU at Twickenham a very strong indication that we are especially disappointed at the attitude that England has taken towards the five nations championship, that we know that the other countries are dead serious about not handing over their rights to the five nations championship and that England really should come to the negotiating table, call a meeting as soon as possible and begin negotiations all over again, which will bring an enormous amount of money to all the countries, not only England.

Miss Kate Hoey: I strongly support new clause 12. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will accept the reasoned arguments about his new schedule. If his schedule were on the statute book, Euro 96 would not have been one of the listed events. It is important that we proceed as my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said.
It is unfortunate that we even have to move and discuss a new clause like this. If the governing bodies of sport took their long-term duty seriously, we should not be in this position. Of course money is important, and of course we want to get more money into sport, but the short-termism of our sports governing bodies, in not worrying about the future of the sport so not encouraging young people to enter it, has meant that more and more of our sport is being changed and manipulated at the will of the people who run television.
I support Sky Television. I welcome what it has done for sport generally, but the balance is beginning to move too much in favour of those who have satellite television at the expense of others who do not but who want to see the jewels of our sporting heritage. The new clause proposes a check on our governing bodies. It will make them sit up and realise that they can no longer act in a vacuum, or assume that what they think is good for sport actually is.
The phrase "the property of Parliament" was used earlier in the debate. I think that sport is the property of the people. As Members of Parliament, we must be able to represent our constituents' point of view. The annual review affords us that opportunity. It is not too much to ask for this compromise. Conservative Members who may feel that we are trying to dictate terms must realise that sport matters enough for Parliament to take it seriously. If we are serious about the future of sport, I see no reason not to support the new clause.

Mr. John Greenway: For the sake of good order I declare my interests as an adviser to Tyne Tees Television and as president of York City football club—not that I want to discuss channel 3 interests or second division football tonight.
The Rugby Football Union has displayed breathtaking timing. The contract that it has signed with BSkyB could not have come at a worse time for the other sporting bodies that are trying to put together a sensible

compromise solution to genuinely held concerns about the sale of sporting rights. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was right: this is a dispute which the national rugby football unions need to resolve themselves. In any case, what has happened does not make the case for new clauses such as these.
I want to mention the interests of racing, speaking in my capacity as chairman of the all-party racing and bloodstock industries committee. Two of the eight listed events are horse races of international importance—the Derby at Epsom and the Grand National at Aintree. Both race courses are owned by the Racecourse Holdings Trust. With some sadness, it has accepted the amendment canted in another place, believing, however, that it has to some extent closed down its opportunities and undermined the value of the sale to terrestrial channels of both the Derby and the Grand National.
As in this House, so within racing there are differing views. Tonight I could construct a convincing argument for further legislative intervention. It is perhaps more difficult to construct an argument against it—except to say that we cannot for ever expect our sporting bodies and their sports to achieve international success while depriving those sports of the lucrative returns from the sale of television rights.
In the recent Friday debate—more leisurely than this one—we were concerned with where all the money goes. We need to insist, for instance, that the Premiership pushes more money down to the clubs in the lower divisions. Without the second and third divisions, and even the Vauxhall Conference, we will not win Euro 2000 or the World Cup in, say, 10 years' time.
The new clauses propose that the Secretary of State will have the power to increase the list in the future. What does that mean for four-year or five-year agreements? For example, I refer to the five-year agreement between the Derby and Channel 4. What about the other big race festivals, such as Cheltenham, Ascot and the August meeting at York? It will undermine the value of the rights of sale, even to terrestrial television.

Dr. John Cunningham: The Secretary of State has the power to add events to the list now. The amendments circumscribe the power of the Secretary of State—she can do it now on her own, without consultation, without reference to the House of Commons, without consultation with the sporting bodies or the racing organisations. The hon. Member for Ryedale has got the point wrong: we are asking for a consultation process before any changes are made, not arbitrary changes in or out of the list.

Mr. Greenway: I very much doubt that the Secretary of State has the power now to add an event to the list retrospectively or to do so in a way that would undermine a contract that is already entered into. If that were the case, it would solve the problem of the Rugby Football Union's sale of the five nations championships—all the Secretary of State would have to do is say, "I am adding this to the list, and the contract is null and void". That is not a sensible proposition.
As I have said, all hon. Members have strong views on this issue. I was a member of a delegation of Conservative Members who went to see the Minister in the early part of the discussions—we wanted to find a way through the


difficulty. I have found that the more I have looked into this, and the more that I have addressed the vexed issue of unbundling, the more I have come to the conclusion that legislation is not the solution. Despite what I said earlier about the poor timing of the Rugby Football Union, I believe that the national sporting bodies have made a genuine attempt through their voluntary codes.
We have before us a unique situation in which the Central Council of Physical Recreation has taken out a full page advertisement in The House Magazine so that hon. Members can see how seriously it views this situation. It is to the credit of the House and the way in which hon. Members on both sides have pursued this issue that it has brought the CCPR, on behalf of all sporting bodies, to the point where, for the first time, they are prepared to put in writing a code of practice and to police it. On balance, that is what the House should support. More legislation is not the solution.

Mr. Menzies: Campbell: I do not declare an interest in this matter so much as an obsession. I have had an obsession with sport since I enjoyed the only access available to the 1948 Olympic games—the radio, or the wireless as it was called in those days. Access has a lot to do with the extent to which people become enthusiastic about sport and the extent to which they are persuaded to take up certain sports. I have an interest in a narrow sense in that I am a debenture holder of the Scottish Rugby Union at Murrayfield. That does not always bring pleasure—it occasionally brings a substantial amount of pain.
The powerful speeches of the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) underline just how extraordinary the decision of the Rugby Football Union is at this time. While it is not the oldest tournament in the world, it is the envy of many other sports, it has lasted a long time, it has given a great deal of pleasure to a large number of spectators and it has ensured the maintenance of the highest standards of proficiency in the sport of rugby football in the northern hemisphere. It seems pretty shortsighted to throw that away in favour of the possibility of a substantial financial return and a large fee paid by one form of television.

Mr. Lord: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Rugby Union has put itself in an impossible position? Twelve months ago it did not—at least openly—pay the players anything, but now it is paying players throughout the sport, and especially those from senior clubs, large sums. As a consequence, each senior club wants £1 million a year in order to run its organisation. Did not the Rugby Union create the situation itself by deciding to go professional and, in my view, destroy the game?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman and I have had that debate before. I understand his desire to stick to what one might call the Corinthian values of rugby football. However, events in the southern hemisphere proceeded at a pace, there was a recognition of rugby players' commitment to the game and the time that they devoted to it and it was decided that they should be paid. We adhered to the Corinthian code in the northern hemisphere, while in the southern hemisphere substantial sums were being paid to players.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: No we did not.

Mr. Campbell: Things may have been different in parts of the country with which the hon. Gentleman is more familiar than I. However, the degree of commitment necessary from players in the Scottish international XV, who trained five or six days a week and spent weekend after weekend away from home for no financial reward, was such that it was not realistic to expect individuals to continue to make that sort of contribution. I think that professionalism was inevitable—and I speak from my experience in the sport with which I was intimately connected. Eventually the degree of commitment necessary becomes such that one cannot expect people to continue doing it for nothing. That may be regrettable, but they are the circumstances.

Dr. John Cunningham: The reality.

Mr. Campbell: Yes, that is the reality. It seems to me that there is a fundamental question whether we believe that the widest possible range of people should have access to special sporting events. It is correct to say that individual sports wish to maximise their access to resources. However, I want to be satisfied that those resources will be spent in sensible ways—the development for which people argue must be funded properly. The truth is—the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) is correct—that there is a degree of short-termism in the approach of many sporting bodies that are not willing to think beyond the immediate offer in a particular contract. In many respects, they are not mindful of the sport for which they presently have responsibility and of their obligations to maintain that heritage and to pass it on to succeeding generations.
There is no doubt that for a long time certain sports were inadequately rewarded. The fact that the BBC was the only broadcaster willing to buy sport meant that there was no proper market. In that sense, many sports did not receive a return on their product. However, that should not be a justification for creating circumstances in which a monopoly is ultimately produced through the operation of the market. If a sporting organisation—no doubt it is substantially generous at this stage—has a monopoly, who is to say that it will not exploit that monopoly again in due course?
Sport is the area in which the non-terrestrial broadcasting organisations are able and willing to compete on financial terms. They are not queuing up to make "Pride and Prejudice" or "Sense and Sensibility", or to make detailed documentaries, or to film all of Shakespeare, or to provide access to the finest opera or music. They have chosen sport. Because the non-terrestrial broadcasting organisations can pay substantial sums, they believe that they will be able to take away from the BBC an important part of the service that the BBC offers. Of course, it is inevitable that the BBC will not be able to compete with the sums of money being offered by other organisations and it will have to consider other methods of funding. The BBC may be driven to introduce subscription and, as soon as that happens, the justification for the licence fee funding of broadcasting becomes increasingly difficult to sustain. So although we are anxious about sport and although the individual enthusiasm of hon. Members is reflected in what they say about sport, a longer-term implication lies behind those matters.
I have much sympathy with new clause 12. A period of 12 months is mentioned in subsection (3), and we can argue about whether the period should be one year or three years. But the thrust of the new clause should recommend itself to the House because it will provide a balance between the legitimate right of any sport to capitalise on its television potential and, at the same time, it will maintain the right of virtually universal access that has been part of the sporting heritage and tradition of the United Kingdom.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have had a general debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. There has been no indulgence from the Chair. Everything has been in order, so far.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: I am relieved, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because my words are therefore unlikely to incur your censure.
The debate has shown the House at its best, because we are united by our concern for sport and for the access of the public to sport. The issue is almost apolitical, and general concern has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If any political instincts intrude on my attitude to the subject, they suggest a minimalist approach; I do not approve of new clause 12 because of its over-prescriptive nature.
If I have a bias, it is to believe that the rights to sport belong to the sporting bodies. We might have views about whether the sporting bodies always conduct their affairs in ways of which we approve, but they might think that we do not always conduct ourselves in a way that they would approve as citizens. I am anxious not to go overboard in placing heavy regulations on the sporting bodies. I recognise the great public interest in the subject and we are all concerned that sport should be revived—we have been concerned that there has not been enough participation in it. We want more resources to go into sport, and one of the easiest ways in which that can be done is through the sale of broadcasting rights.
I have a special interest in cricket. I have the honour to be the secretary of the all-party group on cricket, although I do not speak for the group because we all have our individual opinions. I am also a member of the committee of Essex county cricket club, so I can express a view from that direction. I am concerned that the sport of cricket could be severely prejudiced if we hedge it about with too many restrictions. Cricket needs reviving in this country, and we are concerned about the amount of cricket played by young people in school. For the first time recently, cricket has had a glimpse of the amount of money that it might get, and it will be able to use the increased income from the most recent deal on broadcasting rights to the real good of the sport. All the evidence so far is that it wants to use that money sensibly. When it has an opportunity to gain more money through the sale of its broadcasting rights, it would be cruel of us to restrict that.
Much more needs to be done if we are to revive interest in our great national game. We must think carefully about how we restrict the powers of the cricket authorities to sell what they have. In the last agreement that they made, they demonstrated that they understand the wider needs.

While it is important to raise income to plough back into the game, it vital to the lifeblood of cricket that the public as a whole should be able to develop their interest and experience the excitement of the sport through hearing and watching, through the electronic media, the game being played at the highest level. There must be a balance between the two.
10.45 pm
I happen to think that the cricket authorities might be the best people to judge how to get the balance right, and I am a little doubtful about whether we should second guess them. I should be satisfied to give the Secretary of State a reserve power in case something goes seriously wrong, but I should like the matter to be played out to see what kind of deals are done.

Ms Eagle: Was the hon. Gentleman entirely happy with the coverage of the recent world cup on terrestrial television?

Sir Alan Haselhurst: The hon. Lady betrays a misunderstanding of the matter. There is no way in which hon. Members can control what an overseas organisation does with the television rights to what it possesses. We could exercise no control over what the Indian and Pakistan boards happened to do with the television rights of the world cup in their countries. It is a common misconception. We accuse the British authorities of letting down viewers in this country because, apparently, we cannot get the rights to live, ball-by-ball coverage on terrestrial television here, but we can have no effect on that. We can simply claim to have some effect on what happens with the game as it is played in this country and how it is presented.
At this stage, we would be wiser to accept the work of the sporting authorities, who are signing up to the code of conduct. I instinctively prefer that approach, rather than being over-prescriptive. If they show that they cannot achieve a balance covering the interests of participants, spectators, viewers and listeners, the Secretary of State should have a residual power to intervene, but I urge the House not to go overboard in trying to tie the hands of the various authorities, as we would live to regret it.

Mr. Maxton: I agree with the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst) on one point: we should do as much as we can to encourage people to participate in sport. We have a duty to do so, because evidence shows that exercise is good for individuals' health; and if we improve individuals' health through their participation in sport, we improve the general health of the nation. I presume that we all want that.
Money spent on the development of sport does not, alone, encourage young people to participate in it. Seeing their sporting heroes on television is the major incentive. How many children do we now see on public tennis courts with tennis rackets in their hands because Wimbledon is on television? The whole House has been congratulating the English on how they have run Euro 96. How many kids are now out playing football?
What better case can be made for keeping our major sporting events on terrestrial television than Euro 96? As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) said in Question Time this afternoon, 25 million people


were interested enough in football to watch the England-Germany game last Wednesday. Those figures cannot be matched by cable television or by satellite television. One tenth of that number would have been able to watch Euro 96 if it had been exclusive to satellite. If Euro 96 had been exclusive to satellite, many more people would have gone into pubs to watch it. That would have led to more drinking and thus to more trouble on the streets.
I shall quote briefly from a letter I have received—I am sure that other hon. Members have received it—from Tony Hallett, who is the secretary of what calls itself the Rugby Football Union. That is pretty insulting in itself because it is, of course, the English Rugby Football Union, not the Rugby Football Union. Mr. Hallett says:
We wish to be free to negotiate on our own behalf the best package for our game.
In the same letter, he claims that the agreement the union has reached with BSkyB will mean
greater coverage of live rugby union games".
More matches might be shown live, but the audience will be considerably smaller.
Why should we not accept absolutely the argument that the sporting bodies have a right to sell their broadcasting rights where they wish and how they wish? The answer is this: an enormous amount of public money goes into sport. Money goes directly from government through Sports Council grants. Increasingly, money comes from the lottery, with which there is a five-year deal. So far, almost £200 million has gone from the lottery into all sport. Under the five-year deal, the total figure will be almost £1 billion. Does not that give us some right to say how sport should be run and who should be able to see it?
Large amounts come from local government in terms of playing fields given cheaply, changing rooms and coaching. Then there are coaching and sports facilities in schools. All that is public money. There is also an enormous number of people who give their time freely, or who pay subscriptions to play their sport. Surely with all that money going into sport, we as the representatives of the people who watch sport on television have some right to a say in how sport is shown on television. That seems to me to be a fairly straightforward case. That is why I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said.
There has been great emphasis on the fact that the five nations tournament is likely to disappear as a result of the rugby deal. That is deeply regrettable. The argument is not whether the five nations disappear—I hope that the Scottish Rugby Union, the Welsh Rugby Union, the Irish Rugby Football Union and the French will stand firm and play a four nations tournament rather than try to keep the five nations.
What is more important to rugby is the disappearance of rugby from the television screens of most of our people. Only 15 per cent. of viewers will be able to watch live rugby matches in this country. As the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said, it is live rugby that people want to watch. They want live sport, not highlights or a recording of the event two hours later.
Interest in rugby will decline. Fewer young people will come into the game and the long-term interests of rugby will be damaged as a result of the deal that the English

union has done. The only reason that Tony Hallett gives for the deal is that he wants England to be able to compete with the countries from the southern hemisphere, particularly New Zealand and South Africa. That will never happen, because there is one basic difference between rugby in Britain and rugby in New Zealand and South Africa: rugby is our second or third most important sport. Football is our premier sport, whereas in New Zealand and South Africa rugby is the premier sport—the sport that every youngster wants to play. That is why it will always be extremely difficult for the home nations to compete with those countries.
I am appalled that the English Rugby Football Union is prepared to throw away the five nations championship for the doubtful prize of being able to take on New Zealand and South Africa at some future date. It should concentrate on the five nations championship and develop the sport in Britain.

Mr. Gale: May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister briefly to concentrate his mind on amendment No. 130 and to comment on its legality? It seeks to make certain specific provisions retrospective to the Bill's publication on 19 March. Following publication of the Bill, Back-Bench organisations, sporting bodies and other groups made representations to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. On the back of those representations, the Central Council of Physical Recreation put in an enormous amount of hard work with the governing bodies of many sports in an attempt to produce what everyone believed might work—the voluntary code to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred.
The voluntary code was published while we were debating the Bill in Committee. It covered live transmission rights, repeat rights and radio rights and it was hailed as a great achievement. Everyone believed it to be a fair deal for sports, for sporting bodies that needed television and media money, and for spectators. However, before the ink was dry, a deal was struck between BSkyB and the Rugby Football Union. To be fair to BSkyB and to the RFU, that deal, which separates highlights and radio rights from live transmission rights, honoured the letter of the agreement, but that deal was struck in the knowledge that the other four of the five nations championship were already negotiating a deal with the fifth nation—England—to provide coverage for the whole of the five nations championship. In other words, two organisations—BSkyB and the RFU—sought deliberately to drive a coach and horses through the voluntary code. I believe that the RFU has undermined all the work by the CCPR and my hon. Friend the Minister to establish that voluntary code.
We now know that the five nations championship is at risk and could well become the four nations championship. That will deprive an enormous number of tomorrow's rugby players—the young players—of the opportunity to watch the stars of today. They will no longer have the opportunity to see those games live on television. That is important.
It is important to note that only 10 per cent. of the massive fee will go into developing the game. The other 90 per cent. will be used to pay off the mortgage on Twickenham. I do not believe that 10 per cent. is sufficient to pay for the training and development of young players. Is it legally possible to make the Bill retrospective?


Although I do not like retrospective legislation, the deal was struck in the knowledge that the House was debating the Bill and my hon. Friend and the Central Council of Physical Recreation were negotiating a voluntary code. Action was taken to pre-empt those negotiations. Is it legally possible for the House to make that part of the Bill retrospective so that the deal can be overturned?

Mr. Grocott: It is ironic that in the week after Euro 96 we are debating whether major national sporting events should be broadcast on the main television channels that everyone can watch. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, the semi-finals attracted an audience of around 27 million. That must be close to a record television audience for a sporting event. Had England reached the final, which was played yesterday, there is no doubt that the audience watching would have broken all records for any televised sporting event.
I assume that the Government will oppose the new clause. They have been absolutely intransigent in opposing any attempts by any of us over the years to try to ensure that the major sporting events are shown on the main channels. If—I know that it is a big if—England had won the European championships in front of a huge audience, it would have been in the knowledge that the next European championships could well be available only to an audience of about 2 million people.
11 pm
We know what happens to audiences when events are transferred from terrestrial channels to cable and satellite. Throughout the European championships, we were constantly reminded about the World cup 30 years ago. This is a Department of National Heritage Bill, and we are talking about our national heritage. To those of us who watched that game 30 years ago, England winning the World cup is part of our national heritage—but it would not have been if it had been available only to a tiny minority on a subscription channel. The immortal words, "They think it's all over—it is now," would not even have been remembered; they would certainly not have become part of the country's language.
That loss of heritage applies to many other events too. What would have happened to the interest in athletics if the Coe and Ovett duels of the early 1980s had been available only on a narrowly subscribed channel? Those are the questions that hon. Members should ask themselves before more and more of our major events are lost.
Some of us have been saying these things for years and the Government have basically done nothing. I could cite a great string of events that have already been lost, but I will mention just one or two. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst) talked about the cricket deal. One-day cricket internationals have been lost from terrestrial channels. Although they never attract anything like the viewing figures that football attracts, it is worth looking at what happened to the figures. The last time the one-day internationals in England were available on the terrestrial channels—England against New Zealand in 1994—the audience was 2 million, which I accept is not huge. For the first one-day international match this year, between England and India, shown on satellite, the audience was 170,000. If that is in the long-term interests of cricket, the cricket authorities must have a different view of those interests than common sense dictates.
Those people who say, as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) did—the fallacy is frequently quoted in the House—that somehow the sporting authorities would be in dire need of money and would not get the cash without the generosity of Sky Television should be reminded of the most damaging deal which resulted in the loss of a major event from the main channels: the Premier league football deal, which is currently in operation. In that deal—we know that the money offered has gone up dramatically since then—Sky offered £300 million, while ITV offered about £260 million, which is not peanuts; it is not exactly asking the sporting authorities to accept sackcloth and ashes.
The notion that the chairman of the Premier league, who sat down to negotiate the current deal or the one that has most recently been negotiated for an astronomical sum, was thinking of the long-term interests of the sport and the desperate concern that young people should see it is foolish. I do not particularly blame such people for riot sharing that interest, because running a football club is not necessarily the most lucrative way to pass one's time. Their interest is in next year's balance sheet. That is why they want the deal with Sky. They are not concerned about the most crucial element of sport—that young people should see it at its best.
Anyone who thinks that the Government can be trusted to secure the national events for the nation has only to look at the record. This matter has been raised repeatedly in the past five years. As recently as last December, Ministers were saying that there was no case whatever for intervening in any way, shape or form to try to protect more events. It was only when they lost the vote in the House of Lords that they had a Damascus road conversion.
It is important that the major sports of our nation are available to the people whom we represent and, my word, there is no doubt about what they are saying. We have a responsibility to them, and to the long-term interests of sport which I am afraid that the sporting authorities are simply not taking into account in the way they should. It is our duty to see that the list is regularly reviewed and. I believe, extended to respond to what the public want.

Mr. Sproat: I will try to speak at no great length. I start by saying that this is certainly a serious issue, but the Labour party's proposals are not the answer. The rig ht hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) explained that new clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to review the list of events in clause 91 within 12 months, and annually thereafter. Following the review, the Secretary of State would be required to present an order in Parliament, specifying events to be listed for the following year. This would be subject to negative resolution, or to affirmative resolution if an event were taken off the previous year's list.
The Government are not convinced that there is any need for an annual review process. The protections envisaged in part IV of the Bill for listed events are intended to apply to a limited list of sporting and other events which have a clear national significance. Occasions when an event should come on to the list—or come off it—are likely to be rare and, on past practice, the contents of the list have tended to be adjusted only every five years or so. Nor do the Government agree that the composition of the list should be subject to a process of parliamentary approval. Current arrangements for the Secretary of State


to decide on the contents of the list after consultation with interested bodies—such as the BBC, ITC, S4C and the governing bodies of the sports concerned—maintain the necessary flexibility and allow a fair balance to be struck between the various interests involved.
The process envisaged in the new clause would be cumbersome and bureaucratic, and could be expected to bring continuing turbulence to the make-up of the list and pressures continually to add to it. The list system has worked well and there is a clear system to review it as necessary over time. We are accordingly not persuaded of the case for a new clause requiring an annual review and an order-making process as proposed.

Mr. Maxton: If the ability exists to review the list regularly, did the Government consider putting the five nations championship on the list?

Mr. Sproat: No doubt my right hon. Friend will consider doing so, given what has happened tonight, but she will make up her mind after the House has decided what the process should be.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Sproat: No, I must get on. The right hon. Member for Copeland explained that new clause 15 would enable the Secretary of State to declare void any contract to televise an event that he or she concluded was not in the national interest. That would entail wiping out, at the decree of a Secretary of State, the commercial freedom to strike deals. That is an exceptionally interventionist and draconian measure of virtually unlimited scope with wide-ranging implications for which the Government see no public policy rationale.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst) that if we must make a choice, the people who run the sport concerned—in his case, cricket—must have a better understanding of the game than hon. Members. It is clear that these provisions would introduce major uncertainty in the negotiation of television rights for sporting and other events. I cannot see how a rights holder can be expected to negotiate a contract with a broadcaster if both parties know that there is a possibility that, after they have negotiated a deal, the Secretary of State could declare it void because the Government have decided that what they entered into freely cannot obtain.
The clause is based on an extreme view of the extent to which it is in the national interest to watch certain events on television. It would cause serious damage to a market which, by and large, regulates itself effectively. Adequate and proportionate provisions already exist to protect those events that are of special resonance to this country. If the amendment is pressed to a Division, the Government will certainly oppose it.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister answer the question posed by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)? Since the deal between BSkyB and the RFU was done after it was evident that the House would discuss on Report whether the five nations championship would be

added to the list, does he not regard that deal as an attempt to bounce the House into not putting that event on the list? Does he agree that, in the event of anyone attempting to bounce the House into not doing something that it might otherwise have done, the House should respond strongly and exercise its rights accordingly with his support?

Mr. Sproat: I do not. Retrospective legislation is nearly always bad and would certainly be bad in this case. It is up to the House to decide if it wants to do it—as it certainly could—but I would strongly oppose it.
The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) explained that his amendments Nos. 1 to 5 and the new schedule would enshrine in statute his proposed list of events, which differs in certain ways from the current list. They would make any amendment to the list subject to affirmative order statutory instrument.
As the right hon. Member for Copeland mentioned, one fundamental objection to that is that it would make the Bill hybrid. A second objection is that, in the Government's view, it is wrong to short-circuit the listing process now. The right process is to establish the framework of controls in the Bill and review the list of events subsequently. As I have explained, we are also opposed to a process that would make amendments to the list subject to statutory order.
The right hon. Member for Copeland explained that amendments Nos. 129 and 130 to clauses 91 and 93 would remove the provisions which prevent retrospection. They would make any contract signed after 19 March 1996 subject to the provisions. The Government oppose those amendments on grounds of principle. The intention is to legislate retrospectively so that the five nations championship can be brought within the provisions of part IV of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) rightly said what a lot of people in different parts of the United Kingdom, including England, say about the way that was done, but it is not our right to tell people who own assets what they can or cannot do with them. That is the prime principle on which we stand. Those assets belong to the sports bodies. Whatever we may have as private individuals—[Interruption.] Yes, they belong to the sporting bodies and Parliament should not take away the right of those people to decide how they are going to dispose of them
To sort this out, we asked the Central Council of Physical Recreation to come up with a voluntary code that would meet the two prime concerns involved: the need for as many people as possible to see what they want to see on free-to-air television; and the need for the sports bodies, which develop and are responsible for the sport, to own their own assets. We have reached a compromise in the voluntary code, by which the sports bodies make certain that either the full match is on terrestrial television, or—within a short space of time in the case of the RFU deal—it is on free-to-air terrestrial television within two hours of the match being over. That compromise does not please everyone, but it achieves the best of both worlds that both sides can achieve.
The Government will certainly not agree to any amendment that takes away the rights of the sporting bodies to dispose of their assets. The right hon. Member


for Copeland has not made a compelling case for retrospection and the Government reject all his amendments.

Dr. John Cunningham: With the leave of the House. I want to begin by correcting one error in the contribution of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who said that 19 March was the date of the publication of the Bill. It was not. It was a much more important date—the date on which the Government added their own amendments in the House of Lords to cover these issues, following the vote there. The English Rugby Football Union did its deal with BSkyB after 19 March. So that deal was done after the Government had expressed their intention—by tabling amendments—of preventing such deals being done.
The Minister said nothing in his reply to deal with that issue. Is he content, or is he just thumbing his nose at his hon. Friends who have asked those important questions about the future of the five nations championship? Does he believe that the way the English Rugby Football Union is going is in the best interests of that championship? He ignored those questions from his right hon. and hon. Friends and he has failed to respond effectively to the debate.
In response to the comments of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst), the hon. Gentleman would do far better to support our amendments. If any sport has a good case for being reviewed on the list of events, it is cricket, including Test matches. If the hon. Gentleman supported our amendment, at least there would be an opportunity for that to be done. I therefore intend to press the motion to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 287.

Division No. 162]
[11.14 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Caborn, Richard


Adams, Mrs Irene
Callaghan, Jim


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Alton, David
Campbell-Savours, D N


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Canavan, Dennis


Armstrong, Hilary
Cann, Jamie


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Ashton, Joe
Chidgey, David


Austin-Walker, John
Chisholm, Malcolm


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Church, Judith


Barnes, Harry
Clapham, Michael


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Battle, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clelland, David


Beggs, Roy
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bell, Stuart
Coffey, Ann


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, Andrew F
Connarty, Michael


Benton, Joe
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Berry, Roger
Corbett, Robin


Betts, Clive
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blunkett, David
Corston, Jean


Boateng, Paul
Cousins, Jim


Bradley, Keith
Cox, Tom


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cummings, John


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Byers, Stephen
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)





Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Janner, Greville


Cunningham, Roseanna
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Dafis, Cynog
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro &amp; S'worth)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jowell, Tessa


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Keen, Alan


Denham, John
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&amp;S)


Dewar, Donald
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Dixon, Don
Khabra, Piara S


Dobson, Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Donohoe, Brian H
Kirkwood, Archy


Dowd, Jim
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lewis, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Etherington, Bill
Litherland, Robert


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Livingstone, Ken


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Fatchett, Derek
Llwyd, Elfyn


Faulds, Andrew
Lynne, Ms Liz


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McAllion, John


Flynn, Paul
McCartney, Ian


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Macdonald, Calum


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McFall, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
McKelvey, Wlliam


Foulkes, George
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fyfe, Maria
McLeish, Henry


Galbraith, Sam
Maclennan, Robert


Galloway, George
McNamara, Kevin


Gapes, Mike
MacShane, Denis


Garrett, John
McWilliam, John


George, Bruce
Madden, Max


Gerrard, Neil
Maddock, Diana


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mahon, Alice


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mandelson, Peter


Godsiff, Roger
Marek, Dr John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gordon, Mildred
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Graham, Thomas
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Maxton, John


Grocott, Bruce
Meacher, Michael


Gunnell, John
Meale, Alan


Hall, Mike
Michael, Alun


Hanson, David
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hardy, Peter
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Miller, Andrew


Harvey, Nick
Mitchell, Austin (Gf Grimsby)


Henderson, Doug
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Heppell, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Morgan, Rhodri


Hinchliffe, David
Morley, Elliot


Hodge, Margaret
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hoey, Kate
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Home Robertson, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hood, Jimmy
Mullin, Chris


Hoon, Geoffrey
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
O'Hara, Edward


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Olner, Bill


Hoyle, Doug
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pendry, Tom


Hutton, John
Pickthall, Colin


Illsley, Eric
Pike, Peter L


Ingram, Adam
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jamieson, David
Primarolo, Dawn






Purchase, Ken
Steinberg, Gerry


Quin, Ms Joyce
Stevenson, George


Radice, Giles
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Randall, Stuart
Straw, Jack


Raynsford, Nick
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Rendel, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Timms, Stephen


Rogers, Allan
Touhig, Don


Rooker, Jeff
Trickett, Jon


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dennis


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tyler, Paul


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Rowlands, Ted
Wallace, James


Ruddock, Joan
Walley, Joan


Salmond, Alex
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert N


Sheerman, Barry
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Short, Clare
Wilson, Brian


Simpson, Alan
Wise, Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Snape, Peter



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spellar, John
Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. George Mudie.


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butterfill, John


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cash, William


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amess, David
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Arbuthnot, James
Churchill, Mr


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clappison, James


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Coe, Sebastian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Congdon, David


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Conway, Derek


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bates, Michael
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Batiste, Spencer
Couchman, James


Bellingham, Henry
Cran, James


Bendall, Vivian
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Body, Sir Richard
Day, Stephen


Bonsor, Sr Nicholas
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Booth, Hartley
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Duncan, Alan


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bowis, John
Dunn, Bob


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brandreth, Gyles
Dykes, Hugh


Brazier, Julian
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bright, Sir Graham
Elletson, Harold


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brown, M (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Burt, Alistair
Evennett, David


Butcher, John
Faber, David


Butler, Peter
Fabricant, Michael





Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Leigh, Edward


Fishburn, Dudley
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Forth, Eric
Lidington, David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lord, Michael


French, Douglas
Luff, Peter


Gale, Roger
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gallie, Phil
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, Sir George
MacKay, Andrew


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Garnier, Edward
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gillan, Cheryl
Madel, Sir David


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Maitland, Lady Olga


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Malone, Gerald


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mans, Keith


Gorst, Sir John
Marland, Paul


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, Sr Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mates, Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Hague, Rt Hon William
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Merchant, Piers


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Iain


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Hawkins, Nick
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hawksley, Warren
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Nelson, Anthony


Heald, Oliver
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hendry, Charles
Nicholls, Patrick


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Sir Robert
Norris, Steve


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Ottaway, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Page, Richard


Horam, John
Paice, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pattje, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rathbone, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jessel, Toby
Richards, Rod


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knight Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, Sir David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shepherd, Sr Colin (Hereford)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sims, Sir Roger


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Legg, Barry
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)






Soames, Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


Spencer, Sir Derek
Trend, Michael


Spicer, Sir Jim
Trotter, Neville


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spink, Dr Robert
Viggers, Peter


Sproat, Iain
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Walden, George


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Steen, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Stephen, Michael
Ward, John


Stewart, Allan
Waterson, Nigel



Watts, John


Streeter, Gary
Wells, Bowen


Sumberg, David
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sweeney, Walter
Whitney, Ray


Sykes, John
Whittingdale, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Willetts, David


Thomason, Roy
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thornton, Sir Malcolm



Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tellers for the Noes:


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Simon Burns.


Tracey, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 13

THE SECONDARY LIST OF EVENTS

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall draw up and keep under review a list ("the secondary list") of sporting events of national interest other than events listed under section 91 ("secondary listed events") to which the provisions of this section and of section (Separation of highlights and live coverage of secondary listed events) are to apply.

(2) Subsections (2) to (5) of section (91) shall apply to the secondary list as they apply to the list drawn up by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) of that section, and any reference in that section to a list of sporting or other events of national interest, shall be construed also as a reference to a list drawn up under this section.

(3) For the purposes of the provisions of this Part relating to the secondary list, television programme services shall be divided into two categories as follows—

(a) services falling within paragraph (a) of section 92(1), and Channel 5;
(b) all television programme services not for the time being falling within paragraph (a) above.'—[Mr. Pendrv.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Pendry: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 14—Separation of highlights and live coverage of secondary listed events—
`.—(1) A person providing a service falling within either paragraph (3)(a) or (3)(b) of section (The secondary list of events) ("the first service") for reception in the United Kingdom or any area in the United Kingdom shall not, without the previous consent of the Commission, include in that service live coverage of the whole or any part of a secondary listed event ("the live coverage") unless—

(a) another person, who is providing a service falling within the other paragraph of subsection (3) of that section ("the second service"), has acquired the right to include in that service televised highlights of that event or part of that event; and

(b) the area of the United Kingdom for which the second service is provided consists of or includes the whole, or substantially the whole, of the area of the United Kingdom for which the first service is provided,
but nothing in this subsection shall be taken to prohibit the person providing the first service from including in that service the whole or any part of a recording of the live coverage.
(2) Subsections (3) and (4) of section 95 shall have effect in relation to subsection (1) of this section as they have effect in relation to subsection (I) of that section.
(3) If the Commission are satisfied that the holder of a licence under Part 1 of the 1990 Act or of a digital programme licence under Part 1 of this Act has unreasonably failed to comply with subsection (1), they may require him to pay, within a specified period, a financial penalty to the Commission.
(4) The amount of any financial penalty imposed on any person under subsection (3) above shall not exceed the amount produced by multiplying the relevant consideration by the prescribed secondary multiplier.
(5) In subsection (4)—

(a) "the relevant consideration" has the same meaning as in section 96(4)(a); and
(b) "the prescribed secondary multiplier" means such number as the Secretary of state may from time to time by order prescribe,
and any such order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament
(6) Subsections (6) and (7) of section (96) shall apply to any amount payable to the Commission by virtue of subsection (3) above as they apply to any amount so payable by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) of section (96).
(7) If the Commission are satisfied that a broadcasting body has unreasonably failed to comply with subsection (1) above, they shall make a report to the Secretary of State.
(8) In this section "broadcasting body" has the same meaning as in section (97).
(9) For the purposes of this Part—

(a) "highlights" of live coverage are recorded extracts of that coverage selected from the whole of the coverage by the person to whom the highlights rights are granted, and
(b) references to the right to include highlights of live coverage of the whole or part of a secondary listed event in a television programme service shall be construed as references to the right to include such highlights in that service on each day upon which that event, or part fo that event, takes place and within a reasonable time of the conclusion of that event, or that part of that event, on that day.'.

Mr. Pendry: The new clauses relate to what is commonly called unbundling, which was considered in another place when an amendment was proposed by Lord Howell to compel all sports to be covered by unbundling, legislation. It was withdrawn because a voluntary code of practice was promised instead.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made it clear that if we felt that the code was unsatisfactory we would seek to reintroduce amendments on unbundling at this stage.
We have now been able to see the code of practice drawn up by the major sports division of the Central Council of Physical Recreation, and to study it closely. On that committee, there are several vested interests, which would seek to protect their own negotiated settlements with broadcasters, ahead, we would argue, of national interests; but the House has a duty to consider wider issues than the narrow sectional ones of sports governing bodies. We recognise the interests of millions


of people who enjoy watching sport on terrestrial television, who increasingly find that pleasure taken away from them.
11.30 pm
Although there are some improvements on the previous draft, the Opposition still have several reservations. That is why we tabled new clauses 13 and 14. They are not intended to undermine the voluntary code—quite the opposite. They are there to support the code and ensure that its provisions on unbundling are enforced. If broadcasters and governing bodies abide by the spirit and wording of the voluntary code, there will be no need to add any events to the secondary list; but there is a reserve power for the Secretary of State if need be.
We did welcome the code's publication and its recognition of the importance of sport to the social life of our country. It is encouraging that governing bodies of sport are coming together to draw up a code of this kind. We should note, however, that they did so following moves by a number of us in this and another place to introduce a statutory code.
On many issues, we have no problem with the code. We warmly welcome its call for moneys earned by the sale of broadcasting rights to be reinvested in the development of sport. There may be arguments about the percentage that should -go into that development, which stands at no less than 5 per cent. in the voluntary code, but we should all agree with the general principle. However, we still have several doubts about the code.
First, we are worried that not all major governing bodies have signed up to the code; at the moment, 11 bodies have done so. Secondly, we are worried that there has not been enough dialogue with broadcasters about the code. Initially there was no mention of news access, and that is why we tabled amendments in Committee on that important issue. We are pleased that the Government have accepted that principle by introducing new clause 27.
We have other concerns about what has been left out of the code, and especially about the fact that there is no indication of what will happen to governing bodies if they ignore it. There is no mention of any penalties or methods of enforcement for non-observance. As it is only a voluntary code, the governing bodies could simply ignore whatever penalties were imposed. Ultimately, they have the right to walk away. The code has no teeth and, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) said in Committee,
a voluntary code is clearly not going to be effective."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 June 1996; c. 554.]
I know that many other Conservative Members share his, and indeed our, view.
In Committee, the Minister called for a balanced approach. The interests of the general public, the overwhelming majority of whom do not have access to subscription services, must be considered, but the genuine interests of the sports must be taken into account.
It should be no surprise to the Minister to learn that I agree with him that a balance needs to be struck. Our point of difference is how we strike that balance. The Minister supports the voluntary code but, as I explained, it has deficiencies. We need a measure that will give

adequate protection to all our major sporting events while meeting the reasonable needs of the sports-viewing public. That is precisely what we propose.
I commend these new clauses to the House.

Mr. Sproat: We oppose unbundling and intend to vote against it. The Government considered the issue of unbundling broadcast sports rights with great care and discussed it with all the relevant interests as part of our consultation earlier this year. The Government recognise the special importance of broadcast coverage of sporting events, but this new clause, even if limited in the way that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) explained, introduces an entirely new concept, unparalleled in any other aspect of broadcasting here or, to our knowledge, anywhere else in the world. No other product or commodity sold in a competitive market is subject to such a process.
The sports bodies have acted responsibly in agreeing a voluntary code on broadcasting rights. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde says that he supports it. He cannot support it and then say that he wants to impose a compulsory unbundling.
The Government's provisions on broadcast sport in the Bill are fully in line with the recommendations of the Select Committee. Unbundling is an unwarranted additional step. The ITV Association thinks it preferable that the market should take its course within existing competition rules and does not want unbundling.
The controls proposed by the hon. Gentleman would be complex, uncertain, arbitrary and bureaucratic. They would be subject to uncertainties of definition. Accordingly, I repeat that if the hon. Gentleman wants to carry the matter through to a vote, we will fight him in the Lobby.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 286.

Division No. 163]
[11.33 pm


AYES


Abbott Ms Diane
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell-Savours, D N


Allen, Graham
Canavan, Dennis


Alton, David
Cann, Jamie


Armstrong, Hilary
Chidgey, David


Ashton, Joe
Chisholm, Malcolm


Austin-Walker, John
Church, Judith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clapham, Michael


Barnes, Harry
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Battle, John
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bayley, Hugh
Clelland, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bell, Stuart
Coffey, Ann


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, Andrew F
Connarty, Michael


Benton, Joe
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Berry, Roger
Corbett, Robin


Betts, Clive
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blunkett, David
Corston, Jean


Boateng, Paul
Cousins, Jim


Bradley, Keith
Cox, Tom


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Cummings, John


Byers, Stephen
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Caborn, Richard
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Callaghan, Jim
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Cunningham, Roseanna






Dafis, Cynog
Jowell, Tessa


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Darling, Alistair
Keen, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&amp;S)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro &amp; S'worth)
Khabra, Piara S


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Lewis, Terry


Denham, John
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dewar, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Dixon, Don
Livingstone, Ken


Dobson, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Donohoe, Brian H
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dowd, Jim
Lynne, Ms Liz


Eagle, Ms Angela
McAllion, John


Eastham, Ken
McCartney, Ian


Etherington, Bill
Macdonald, Calum


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McFall, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McKelvey, William


Fatchett, Derek
Mackinlay, Andrew


Faulds, Andrew
McLeish, Henry


Flynn, Paul
Maclennan, Robert


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McNamara, Kevin


Foster, Don (Bath)
MacShane, Denis


Foulkes, George
McWilliam, John


Fyfe, Maria
Madden, Max


Galbraith, Sam
Maddock, Diana


Galloway, George
Mahon, Alice


Gapes, Mike
Mandelson, Peter


Garrett, John
Marek, Dr John


George, Bruce
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Martlew, Eric


Godsiff, Roger
Maxton, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meacher, Michael


Graham, Thomas
Meale, Alan


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michael, Alun


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Grocott, Bruce
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gunnell, John
Miller, Andrew


Hall, Mike
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hanson, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Rhodri


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morley, Elliot


Harvey, Nick
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Heppell, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mudie, George


Hinchliffe, David
Mullin, Chris


Hodge, Margaret
O'Hara, Edward


Hoey, Kate
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Olner, Bill


Home Robertson, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hood, Jimmy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pearson, Ian


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Pickthall, Colin


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L


Hoyle, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hutton, John
Purchase, Ken


Illsley, Eric
Quin, Ms Joyce


Ingram, Adam
Radice, Giles


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Randall, Stuart


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Raynsford, Nick


Jamieson, David
Rendel, David


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rooney, Terry





Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rowlands, Ted
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Salmond, Alex
Timms, Stephen


Sedgemore, Brian
Touhig, Don


Sheerman, Barry
Trickett, Jon


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Turner, Dennis


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tyler, Paul


Short, Clare
Wallace, James


Simpson, Alan
Walley, Joan


Skinner, Dennis
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wareing, Robert N



Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)
Williams Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wlliams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Snape, Peter
Wilson, Brian


Spearing, Nigel
Worthington, Tony


Spellar, John
Wray, Jimmy


Steinberg, Gerry
Wright, Dr Tony


Stevenson, George
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Strang, Dr. Gavin



Straw, Jack
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Coe, Sebastian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Colvin, Michael


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Congdon, David


Amess, David
Conway, Derek


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Ashby, David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Couchman, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Cran, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Day, Stephen


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bates, Michael
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Beggs, Roy
Dover, Den


Bellingham, Henry
Duncan, Alan


Bendall, Vivian
Duncan Smith, Iain


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dunn, Bob


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dykes, Hugh


Booth, Hartley
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Boswell, Tim
Elletson, Harold


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Emery, Ftt Hon Sir Peter


Bottomley, Fit Hon Virginia
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bowis, John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brazier, Julian
Evennett, David


Bright, Sir Graham
Faber, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fabricant, Michael


Brown, M (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Fishburn, Dudley


Browning, Mrs Angela
Forman, Nigel


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Budgen, Nicholas
Forth, Eric


Burns, Simon
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Burt, Alistair
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butcher, John
French, Douglas


Butler, Peter
Fry, Sir Peter


Butterfill, John
Gale, Roger


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gallie, Phil


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gardiner, Sir George


Cash, William
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Garnier, Edward


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Gill, Christopher


Churchill, Mr
Gillan, Cheryl


Clappison, James
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles






Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gorst, Sir John
Marlow, Tony


Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mates, Michael


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hague, Rt Hon William
Merchant, Piers


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Hannam, Sir John
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hawkins, Nick
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Nelson, Anthony


Hayes, Jerry
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heald, Oliver
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Nicholls, Patrick


Hendry, Charles
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Sir Robert
Norris, Steve


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Ottaway, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Page, Richard


Horam, John
Paice, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Patrick, Sir Irvine


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rathbone, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Richards, Rod


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Robathan, Andrew


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Key, Robert
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knox, Sir David
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shersby, Sir Michael


Legg, Barry
Sims, Sir Roger


Leigh, Edward
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Soames, Nicholas


Lidington, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Luff, Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacKay, Andrew
Stephen, Michael


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Stewart, Allan


McLoughlin, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Madel, Sir David
Sweeney, Walter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sykes, John


Malone, Gerald
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Ian (Esher)





Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Ward, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Waterson, Nigel


Thomason, Roy
Watts, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, Patrick (Nonwich N)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Whittingdale, John


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tracey, Richard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Tredinnick, David
Wilkinson, John


Trend, Michael
Willetts, David


Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wood, Timothy


Viggers, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William



Walden, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Gyles Brandreth.


Waller, Gary

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 17

BBC PENSIONS

'—(1) The trustees of the BBC Pension Scheme shall refer to the Secretary of State, before such date as he may specify, the division and distribution of the relevant assets which is to be made for the purpose of making a transfer payment to a pension scheme established for their employees by a person or persons specified in a scheme under section 110 of the Act (the specified person); any such division and distribution of those assets and liabilities shall not be made by the trustees except—

(a) with the consent of the Secretary of State, or
(b) in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2).

(2) Where any such division and distribution is referred to the Secretary of State under subsection (1), he may by order direct that the relevant assets shall be divided and distributed by the trustees in such a manner, and such a time, as is specified in the order; and any provision of—

(a) the pension scheme established by the specified person referred to in subsection (1), or
(b) any enactment relating to occupational pension schemes, including any enactment relating to transfer values,

shall not have effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with the division and distribution of those assets in accordance with any such order.

(3) When making an order under subsection (2) the Secretary of State shall have regard to the interests of all classes of persons who are for the time being beneficiaries under the scheme referred to in subsection (1).

(4) In this clause, "the relevant assets" means the assets held by or on behalf of the trustees and "the trustees" means the trustees of the Scheme referred to in subsection (1).

(5) An order under subsection (2) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Dr. John Cunningham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 284.

Division No. 164]
[11.47 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Austin-Walker, John


Adams, Mrs Irene
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Ainger, Nick
Barnes, Harry


Allen, Graham
Barron, Kevin


Alton, David
Battle, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Bayley, Hugh


Ashton, Joe
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret






Beggs, Roy
Gapes, Mike


Bell, Stuart
Garrett, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
George, Bruce


Bennett, Andrew F
Gerrard, Neil


Benton, Joe
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bermingham, Gerald
Godman, Dr Norman A


Berry, Roger
Godsiff, Roger


Betts, Clive
Golding, Mrs Llin


Blunkett, David
Graham, Thomas


Boateng, Paul
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Grocott, Bruce


Byers, Stephen
Gunnell, John


Caborn, Richard
Hall, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Hanson, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Harvey, Nick


Campbell-Savours, D N
Henderson, Doug


Canavan, Dennis
Heppell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Chidgey, David
Hinchliffe, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hodge, Margaret


Church, Judith
Hoey, Kate


Clapham, Michael
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clelland, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Coffey, Ann
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cohen, Harry
Hoyle, Doug


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbett, Robin
Hutton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Illsley, Eric


Corston, Jean
Ingram, Adam


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cummings, John
Jamieson, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jenkins, Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Darling, Alistair
Jowell, Tessa


Davidson, Ian
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Keen, Alan


Davies, Chris
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&amp;S)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Khabra, Piara S


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Denham, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dixon, Don
Lewis, Terry


Dobson, Frank
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Donohoe, Brian H
Litherland, Robert


Dowd, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eastham, Ken
Llwyd, Elfyn


Etherington, Bill
Lynne, Ms Liz


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McAllion, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McCartney, Ian


Fatchett Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Faulds, Andrew
McFall, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McKelvey, William


Flynn, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
McLeish, Henry


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Maclennan, Robert


Foster, Don (Bath)
McNamara, Kevin


Foulkes, George
MacShane, Denis


Fyfe, Maria
McWilliam, John


Galbraith, Sam
Madden, Max


Galloway, George
Maddock, Diana





Mahon, Alice
Rooney, Terry


Mandelson, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Marek, Dr John
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Rowlands, Ted


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Salmond, Alex


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Sheerman, Barry


Maxton, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Meacher, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Meale, Alan
Short, Clare


Michael, Alun
Simpson, Alan


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Snape, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spearing, Nigel


Morgan, Rhodri
Spellar, John


Morley, Elliot
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stevenson, George


Mowlam, Marjorie
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mudie, George
Straw, Jack


Mullin, Chris
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Hara, Edward
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Olner, Bill
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Neill, Martin
Timms, Stephen


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Touhig, Don


Pearson, Ian
Trickett, Jon


Pendry, Tom
Turner, Dennis


Pickthall, Colin
Tyler. Paul


Pike, Peter L
Wallace, James


Pope, Greg
Walley, Joan


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wareing, Robert N


Primarolo, Dawn
Wicks, Malcolm


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Radice, Giles
Wilson, Brian


Randall, Stuart
Worthington, Tony


Raynsford, Nick
Wray, Jimmy


Rendel, David
Wright, Dr Tony


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)



Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Rooker, Jeff





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Bowis, John


Alexander, Richard
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Brandreth, Gyles


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Brazier, Julian


Amess, David
Bright, Sir Graham


Arbuthnot, James
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brown, M (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)


Ashby, David
Browning, Mrs Angela


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Burns, Simon


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Butcher, John


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Butler, Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butterfill, John


Bates, Michael
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bellingham, Henry
Cash, William


Bendall, Vivian
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Beresford, Sir Paul
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Churchill, Mr


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clappison, James


Booth, Hartley
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Boswell, Tim
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Coe, Sebastian






Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Congdon, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan, Alan
Key, Robert


Duncan Smith, Iain
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Elletson, Harold
Knox, Sir David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evennett, David
Legg, Barry


Faber, David
Leigh, Edward


Fabricant, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lester, Sir Jim


Fishburn, Dudley
Lidington, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lord, Michael


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Luff, Peter


French, Douglas
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fry, Sir Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew


Gallie, Phil
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Gardiner, Sir George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Garnier, Edward
Madel, Sir David


Gill, Christopher
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gillan, Cheryl
Malone, Gerald


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marland, Paul


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marlow, Tony


Gorst, Sir John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Merchant, Piers


Hague, Rt Hon William
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, Sir John
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Nick
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholls, Patrick


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Norris, Steve


Hendry, Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Sir Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Page, Richard


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Paice, James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Horam, John
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James





Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Sweeney, Walter


Pickles, Eric
Sykes, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Rathbone, Tim
Thomason, Roy


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Richards, Rod
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Riddick, Graham
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robathan, Andrew
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tracey, Richard


Robertson, Raymond (Abd'n S)
Tredinnick, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Trend, Michael


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Trotter, Neville


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Viggers, Peter


Sackville, Tom
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sainsbury, Ftt Hon Sir Timothy
Walden, George


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waller, Gary


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Ward, John


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Waterson, Nigel


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Watts, John


Shersby, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen


Sims, Sir Roger
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Whitney, Ray


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Whitrjngdale, John


Soames, Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Willetts, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sproat, Iain
Wood, Timothy


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Yeo, Tim


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stephen, Michael



Stewart, Allan
Tellers for the Noes:


Streeter, Gary
Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Roger Knapman.


Sumberg, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Bates.]

To be further considered tomorrow.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (PRODUCTION AND SALE) BILL

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Bates.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Speaker shall, notwithstanding Standing Orders Nos. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) and 15 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure)),—
(1) at the sitting on Monday 8th July, put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to Industrial Tribunals and Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and
(2) at the sitting on Tuesday 9th July, put the Questions on the Motions in the names of Mr. Secretary Lilley and Mr. Tony Blair relating to Occupational Pension Schemes not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and
the said Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Bates.]

PETITION

Inland Revenue (Salisbury)

Mr. Robert Key: It is now midnight. Exactly 12 hours ago, I received at St. Stephen's Gate the petition that I now present to the House. My constituents object to the proposal to close the tax office in Salisbury. Nobody likes paying tax, but when people do, they require a good local service to taxpayers and employers. Last year, there were 10,000 personal callers at the Salisbury tax office and more than 50,000 telephone calls seeking advice and help.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will take note of our concern and join us in calling on the Government and the Inland Revenue to maintain current levels of service and to continue to provide a local tax office in Salisbury.

To lie upon the Table.

East London Line

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

12 midnight

Mr. Jim Dowd: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise an issue that is important to us in south-east London. I am also pleased to see the Minister in his place. I am well aware that his duties seem to entail responding to a disproportionate number of Adjournment debates; I do not know whether he receives performance-related pay. That highlights the importance that transport-related issues have for Members throughout the country, and especially in London, where the problems are often at their most acute.
I do not know whether the press reports that the summer will see the Minister finally being able to lay down his onerous burden are accurate. If that does happen, I for one will miss him, and I wish him well in whatever the future may bring.
The ability to travel easily into and through inner London on good public transport is becoming ever more urgent as road traffic grows and as greater priority is given by all political parties to environmental standards. In that regard, the prospects for the development of the east London line offer substantial potential for relatively rapid low-cost and cost-effective improvements to the transport system in south-east London in particular.
The dearth of tube services south of the river, and especially in south-east London, is a matter of historical fact and a continuing source of discontent for those of us who live there. The Minister's constituency, which is at least three times further from this place than my own, has a tube service reaching up to if not beyond the M25, deep into Essex. Yet the entire borough of Lewisham, an inner-London authority, has only two stations in the very north of the borough, at New Cross and New Cross Gate, neither of which is in my constituency. It is the potentiall of an expansion of services from those stations to which I wish to draw attention this evening.
The east London line has always has been the Cinderella of the London underground—or north London underground, as it could more accurately be described. It seems to have been viewed more as an awkward appendage to the overall system than as an integral part of it. The present position is even worse, because we have no service at all on the east London line. It has been closed since March last year for work to the Brunel tunnel under the Thames and other work associated with the Jubilee line extension.
The people in the area welcome the improvement and upgrading, but we were told that the line would be closed for only seven months. It remains closed, and, for a variety of reasons of which the Minister is well aware, as I have raised the matter with him on numerous occasions—I have a strong impression that his views on the handling of the matter are not very different from my own—the reopening will certainly not be until next summer, probably in August. That is a period getting on for 30 months, as opposed to the original seven.
The Minister will be relieved to know that I do not intend to belabour that aspect of the case. However, I will say that, although the people of south-east London have as much regard for our common architectural heritage as


anyone, they place at least as much weight on having comprehensive, safe and reliable transport links as they do on being spectators in an industrial museum. Suffice it to say that it has been an object lesson on how not to run a railway. None the less, looking forward optimistically to the restoration of the service, it is imperative to maximise the benefits of the refurbished river crossing by examining ways of extending services both north and south.
As a lifelong resident of south-east London, I have long felt that the extension of the Bakerloo line from Elephant and Castle through Camberwell, Peckham, Dulwich, Forest Hill and Catford to Bromley and/or Croydon would be the most significant transformation of the public transport system in our part of the capital. However, the plans have been around for many decades, and the immense logistical and financial implications of their numerous permutations effectively pushes any such scheme firmly into the medium if not long term.
It is my firm belief that the development of the east London line services south from New Cross Gate via Forest Hill and Norwood Junction to East Croydon can, by the imaginative use of largely existing Railtrack infrastructure, effect the best and quickest extension of underground services into south-east London.
The east London line extension project has strong regeneration benefits for inner London and represents good value for money within London Transport's business criteria. It could be operational within the lifetime of the next Parliament if priority is given to authorisation and funding. With the creation of the important interchange at Canada Water linking to the millennium site on the Greenwich peninsula, and the opportunities for connection with direct services to Gatwick at East Croydon, the scale of the possible benefits becomes clearly apparent.
Government policies support the extension in principle. The public inquiry into the northern extension to the City and Dalston was held in autumn 1994, and just last week the Minister announced that he was "minded to approve" the project. I welcome that unreservedly.
A cash funding gap is currently forecast for the extension. London Underground is actively pursuing private finance initiative opportunities, but better value for money could be achieved by through running to and from Railtrack lines in south London. Subject to line capacity, it might be possible to provide crossovers on to Railtrack at New Cross Gate as a low-cost and rapid solution.
Final authorisation and contractual arrangements depend on a number of next steps, including the actions that I have just listed, progress with the PFI and an understanding of the funding gap that London Underground might have to cover. There is good support from other interests such as Railtrack, which is researching through-running options.
At present, the line is closed, but when it was last running, it made a small operating loss. It is recognised as an important cross-river public transport service east of Tower Bridge. It serves the boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Southwark and Lewisham; I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in his place. They are all inner-city communities involved in regeneration projects such as those in Bethnal Green and Deptford.
Passenger business doubled in the 10 years to 1994, largely through docklands redevelopment. London Transport has long recognised that the line's revenue potential and the economic benefits for London have been limited by its use simply as a cross-river shuttle, and its policy is to extend the line to serve a larger area, and preferably link with the Railtrack lines north and south of the river.
The Government's transport strategy for London was published in May, and recognises the potential of an extended east London line. It states:
Some schemes, notably the East Thames Crossings and East London Line, are of particular importance to the achievement … of regeneration.
The Government's strategic guidance for London's planning authorities that was also published in May includes the objectives to
maximise the environmental and economic benefits of serving London's transport needs by public modes in preference to the private car and improve the attractiveness of all forms of public transport to provide a viable alternative to the private car and secure modal shift
and to
support new rail infrastructure where justified, both in response to demand and to assist regeneration".
Technical advice is that through main line trains could use an extended east London line, subject to some modifications of the existing line. It was used by British Rail until the 1960s, and the design of the strengthened Brunel tunnel permits use by some national train types.
A through-running study reviewing routing options is due later this year from Railtrack, and the project would be better value for money if through running via a southern extension was introduced at a similar date to the northern extension, although work on the northern extension is much further advanced, as I shall explain. Subject to available line capacity—I recognise that as a constraint, especially with the as yet unclear development of Thameslink 2000—it should be possible to provide the crossover I mentioned for a low-cost and rapid solution for the southern extension.
The southern extension from New Cross via Forest Hill and Norwood junction to East Croydon also has the distinct advantage above all the other southern extension options of not needing any special powers under the Transport and Works Act 1992, or other special powers. Opportunities for through running to increase further passenger traffic would have the benefit of providing through commuter trains between north and south London, serving the City of London at a new station on the site of Bishopsgate goods yard, and linking outer-London centres such as Croydon directly to docklands—Croydon being one of the south-east's major commercial centres outside London.
The east London line projects score well on all calculators of regeneration benefits and London Underground's value-for-money criteria; however, a cash-funding gap is forecast for the northern extension. The schemes accord with the Government's funding priorities as set out in the joint Department of Transport/Government Office for London transport strategy, which was also published in May, which stated as priorities
new and improved river crossings downstream of Tower Bridge … projects which sustain and enhance London's economic position … projects which exploit the contributions that private finance can make".
The east London line extensions are listed in the Department of Transport and the Government Office for London's third tranche of schemes after existing and committed projects. The Department of Transport and the Government Office of London have advised that progress and timing of the east London line extensions now depend on securing private finance. London Underground Ltd. launched a major consultation exercise in April to seek views on how the project can best be structured to achieve successful private finance involvement, and is to consult further with train operating companies.
The East London Line Group, which, as the Minister will be aware, is a joint body representing the common interests of all the boroughs along the route, together with local communities, regeneration partnerships and businesses in the areas affected, has a crucial role to play. It has already been active in raising partnership finance and assisting site preparation, which has included Hackney council, London Industrial and Dalston City Partnership securing £2 million from the European regional development fund for refurbishment of the Dalston viaduct. Hackney and Tower Hamlets councils have worked with Railtrack Property and English Partnership to secure the go-ahead for the almost £2 million-worth demolition of Bishopsgate goods yard.
Other crucial elements are required to be put into place to take the schemes forward. With rail privatisation, the rail network in London has a mixed economy for planning and authorisation, ranging from statutory railway regulatory agencies and Government Departments to the public sector, London Underground and its newly enlarged PFI powers, to the private sector Railtrack and other train operating companies. The east London line and its extensions are at the interface between all those different ownerships and responsibilities, and it will require positive support and effort and innovative decisions to take the project forward expeditiously.
The Government need to provide guidance on the scale of any funding gap that may be bridged in recognition of the projects' benefits to London's regeneration and the many London boroughs that have access to the single regeneration budget, transport policies and programmes funding and ERDF money that are not available either to Railtrack or London Underground.
The East London Line Group has offered to work closely with London Underground on marketing the reopened line and seeking better connections with other rail and bus services, although the best marketing tool for a transport service would be that it serves the places where people are and the places they want and need to go. The extension of the east London line falls neatly into that pattern.
The list of necessary next steps show that, with the PFI and main line privatisation, the path towards an extended east London line is not simple. Much needs to be done by others. Railtrack, for example, is helping with assessment of the extensions for through running. Nevertheless, it would greatly assist the project if the Minister could give commitments—not necessarily now, but certainly in the near future—to endorsing the re-marketing of the line on, we hope, its reopening in the summer of next year, and to giving a definite date by which a decision will be made on the northern extension.
That will give confidence and certainty to the private sector—the key to levering in private finance moneys and to the project development process. The Government must

agree in principle that the initial east London line extensions should open as a cross-river link in time for the Greenwich millennium exhibition. They must indicate their willingness to consider what core funding may be appropriate as a contribution towards the extensions project once any funding gap has been better defined by London Underground Ltd.
The Minister must facilitate urgent discussions between LUL, Railtrack, the franchising director and the rail regulator on matters of joint and individual interest concerning through running, which must be settled before the tenders are sought. In view of the level of complexity, I ask the Minister to press the Government Office for London to appoint a co-ordinator to ensure that the necessary progress on this matter is made as soon as possible.
This is a complicated issue, requiring effort and commitment by a number of bodies and individuals. Within that context, the southern extension via New Cross Gate and Forest Hill to Croydon offers the most straightforward option, and the benefits that it could bring to large numbers of people in east London—both north and south of the river—will more than justify the exertions involved. The hon. Member for Southwark arid Bermondsey has asked for thirty seconds to speak in the debate, and he may be fortunate in seeking catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Simon Hughes: First, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) and, on behalf of the neighbouring borough of Southwark, I endorse entirely the case that he made. Secondly, although we have clearly suffered from the long-term closure, there is great expectation about the reopening of the line. Thirdly, all the stations currently on the line serve a vital use. Fourthly, of all the five cross-river underground lines, the east London line has the greatest potential for regenerative advantage at the least cost and with the greatest ease for the citizens of Southwark, and for those citizens of the area where the Minister lives and beyond.
I hope that there can be an amber light now and a green light soon for an east London line extension to follow the succesful Jubilee line extension that was breaking new ground only last week. I hope that the Minister can be positive, and I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West said on behalf of his borough, his constituency and his colleagues in south-east London.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham', West on securing this debate, and I am extremely grateful to him for his kind personal remarks. The trouble is that mutual congratulation is a dangerous sport in this place, although I am probably rather more relaxed about it than the hon. Gentleman. But I am extremely grateful to him, not only for having raised the issue tonight, but for all the support that he has given to the east London line through what he rightly said has been a difficult time.
I acknowledge straight away that this has been an extremely unsatisfactory process for constituents, including those of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). In the limited time available,


we do not want to go over that history. However, I confirm that the Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society is working closely with London Underground to make sure that the historical aspects of the tunnel are fully studied, analysed and recorded. The line is expected to be ready to reopen in the summer of next year, and it will reopen in a better shape than ever.
About £75 million is going into the line, bringing real and visible improvements to both the trains and the infrastructure and underpinning the future of the line. As well as the new station at Canada Water—which the hon. Gentleman rightly said will be vital for access to the millennium festival and to the swathe of stations east of the east London line—the stations at Whitechapel, Shadwell, Wapping, Rotherhithe and Surrey Quays are all being renovated and cleaned, and their brickwork is being repointed. There will be a spectacular difference. Those stations are beautiful in their own right. They have some fine industrial archaeology, which might be frustrating on occasions, but which is worth preserving and celebrating. That also means that they will be in good order to survive for the use of future generations, and they will be a lot more attractive.
We are going to improve the trains as part of the big train refurbishment programme. They will be smarter, cleaner and more comfortable. We will be renewing the signalling system, which will make the service a lot more reliable. There will be new train arrival indicators, station closed circuit television, clocks and so forth, and the train radio and tunnel telephone systems are also being replaced.
In addition to the more visible signs of improvement, we are going to renew sections of the track, completely overhauling the pumps and the drainage and installing additional track-side power supplies. So our joint hope is that, when all that transpires in the summer of next year, we will have a first-class system as a lynchpin to the two extensions.
As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West said, the interest is now in looking at the future—in terms both of the northern extension and of the prospects south of the river, which are every bit as exciting as he suggests. First, on the works north of the river, as he says, I have issued a "minded to" letter already for the northern extensions. I think that we have made it clear that, in the event that the work proceeds, it will need to do so as a private finance initiative project.
London Underground is reassured that there is a degree of interest in that project and in taking it forward. None of the three of us here represents that part of London, but we are acutely aware of it. Hackney is, I think, the only borough north of the river that does not have any tube station. There is no doubt that putting a rail facility in from Dalston and Highbury and Islington down into the east London line and accessing the City in that way will be a major improvement. As a lot of the track bed is already in place and the cost of refitting the line will be relatively modest, it seems an opportunity well worth taking.
I am obliged not to express any further opinions on the attractiveness or otherwise of the details of the scheme, because of the quasi-judicial role that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is required to exercise. We

have initiated the scheme with London Underground, and have always been clear about its advantages for London. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is included in the strategy document. I can make it clear that I think that it will serve a worthwhile purpose.
On the extensions to the south, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the prospect of the line going from East Croydon through to Canada Water and then north is very exciting. Obviously, the train path issues must be studied with Railtrack—in terms of Thameslink and the other competing services on the line. On other occasions, I have found it frustrating that the limiting factor for a new proposal—I am thinking of the west London line—is not so much the willingness of the rail company to run the service, or of passengers to use it, as the fact that there are limitations on train paths, which are almost insuperable, for technical and safety reasons.
The hon. Gentleman made a good point. We have to ensure that we explore as many of the rolling-stock opportunities as we can. Where it is possible to offer longer through services, I am sure that, the more we are able to stitch in the east London line to services both north and south, the greater benefit there will be—decongestion, opening up the hon. Gentleman's area and, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey suggested, perhaps even opening up parts of Camberwell, Peckham, and possibly Denmark Hill and the loop through to Victoria. There are some tremendous possibilities, which are worth exploring.
I have always felt that the east London line was something of a Cinderella. Ironically, unlike the Jubilee line, at more than £2,000 million, the east London line—at what we might describe as £100 million in envelope terms for the extensions—is probably a fairly modest bet, but it is just as important to the areas it will serve. The hon. Gentleman has made his point very well: there is nothing like the density of rail link in this part of south-east London as exists in almost every other quadrant of the city.
The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions about the future of the line. First, he asked about re-marketing of the line on reopening. He is right: that needs to be treated as a specific exercise. I know that London Underground is very keen to win back substantial custom on the line. To put it bluntly, having invested £75 million in substantial improvements, the one thing it does not want to do is let them go by default. London Underground wants to ensure that the marketing is forceful, and brings home to people just what a good service there is from north to south.
As for the Transport and Works Act order application, I understand that a final decision letter could be issued by the end of this month, or very soon thereafter. I am afraid that I cannot give a more precise date.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could give a commitment that the extensions could open as a cross-river link in time for the Greenwich millennium exhibition. I agree that that is a very desirable objective, although we shall have to deal with a number of issues that exist in the real world—not least, affordability and value for money—and obviously the PF1 competition will have to run its course. We will have a reopened line through to Canada Water that will facilitate some of the millennium traffic.
The hon. Gentleman is right about the time scale. I think that we are both committed to agitating for the development in order to make it a reality and a success.
As for the funding gap, I look forward to receiving furtehr advice from London Underground on the possibilities for financing of the scheme. LUL has undertaken to come back to me either later this month or early next month on the figures that it is now hearing. I can make no promises at this stage, because I do not yet know what the financing prospects are, but when I talk to London Underground, I shall bear in mind the strong desirability of an effective package.
As for the urgent discussions among London Underground, Railtrack, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising, the regulator and others, the point has been extremely well made. We have an interface between two different systems, and it may be a question of underground trains running on Railtrack track.
Personally, I have always felt entirely relaxed about the ownership of the new scheme. Whether it is owned by a train operating company, London Underground or a third party seems to me much less important than that the scheme goes ahead. The PFI discussions may well make it obvious who should take on the financing, but I am assured that the process of joint urgent discussion being

led by London Underground is now under way. My officials stand ready to help in any way they can in the event that their services are needed.
The hon. Gentleman's points about access to a better public transport system for a huge number of people in the south-east quadrant of London underpin the whole debate. The historic reasons for not building the underground railway south of the river are reasonably well known, certainly to the hon. Gentleman and others with experience of London. We must now plug the gaps, which, as we all know, are large and not inexpensive.
However, together with the Docklands light railway extension, and hopefully, in due course, the Woolwich metro project—which we mentioned in the strategy document—this development will enable us to take much of the traffic off roads in that quadrant and use some of the public transport capacity that is inherent there. At present, there is heavy traffic in the area.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having raised the issue. This has been a useful exchange, and I thank him again for the supportive and constructive way in which he has dealt with the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Twelve midnight.